Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Page 17 of 22 [ 339 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Dec 2011, 7:08 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Merry solstice. Fear not, for our Sun will return, follow the path of the three kings, and when they align with the bright star to the east you will find the place where our saviour (the sun) will be reborn.


This is your belief and has nothing to do with what the ancients believed. Please stop conflating your beliefs with the ancient ones.


If we have agreed there is no evidence of pre history apart from stone circles, artifacts, and cave paintings, then how can you say this is nothing to do with what the acient's believed. I am not talking here about Mesopotamia, or any civilisation after them. I am speculating a possible story told of the sun, by the hunter gatherers of Europe.


What do the hunter-gatherers of Europe have to do with the Middle East, and thus the birth of Christianity?
While there was immigration coming into Europe from the Middle East during the Neolithic, there was no evidence of Paleolithic immigrants exiting Europe for the Middle East, or anywhere else. The Cro-Magnon element in Ice Age Europe, instead became pushed by the newcomers into what later became the Germanic north, and the mountains of the Balkans. And the simple fact is, whatever the religion of the Cro-Magnon people might have been, it seems to have changed more than once among their descendants.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

18 Dec 2011, 8:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Merry solstice. Fear not, for our Sun will return, follow the path of the three kings, and when they align with the bright star to the east you will find the place where our saviour (the sun) will be reborn.


This is your belief and has nothing to do with what the ancients believed. Please stop conflating your beliefs with the ancient ones.


If we have agreed there is no evidence of pre history apart from stone circles, artifacts, and cave paintings, then how can you say this is nothing to do with what the acient's believed. I am not talking here about Mesopotamia, or any civilisation after them. I am speculating a possible story told of the sun, by the hunter gatherers of Europe.


What do the hunter-gatherers of Europe have to do with the Middle East, and thus the birth of Christianity?
While there was immigration coming into Europe from the Middle East during the Neolithic, there was no evidence of Paleolithic immigrants exiting Europe for the Middle East, or anywhere else. The Cro-Magnon element in Ice Age Europe, instead became pushed by the newcomers into what later became the Germanic north, and the mountains of the Balkans. And the simple fact is, whatever the religion of the Cro-Magnon people might have been, it seems to have changed more than once among their descendants.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hunter gatherers in Europe would have learnt agriculture information from the middle east, along with stories about the suns cycle (if they didn't have them already). Trade has occurred for many tens of thousands of years in Europe. Religion changes all the time, that is what I have been saying all along. It is different versions of older stories, kind of like urban myths down the generations.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

18 Dec 2011, 8:44 pm

MCalavera wrote:

There you go. You've already made up your mind nothing in the Bible is true. That's the problem.

Historians don't work that way. And the Bible isn't so distorted to the point that we can't discern anything historical from it. We have evidence that the texts we have access to now are basically the same as the originals. The variants that exist aren't really so big that it warrants distortion of the main message.


The problem is the bible is full of unlikely stories, many contradict, or repeat, and none of it can be verified.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

18 Dec 2011, 8:47 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

18 Dec 2011, 10:22 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

19 Dec 2011, 2:54 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


Hi MCalavera,

Do the IRS "Noisy Number Statistical Count Test" to see if the "noise" in the sources matches other noise levels in other widely accepted "histories". (It doesn't pass the test, but that's just a test the IRS uses to pick out probable tax cheats to investigate with the sights on prosecutions (tax cheats tend to "dream up" numbers that aren't noisy enough to match numbers truthfully determined from a reality).

Tadzio



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

19 Dec 2011, 8:42 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2011, 2:37 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.


What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

19 Dec 2011, 2:44 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So then why would anything in the Gospels be attributed any historical value? (genuinely curious)


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2011, 3:08 pm

Lecks wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So then why would anything in the Gospels be attributed any historical value? (genuinely curious)


Because they are accounts of the beginning of a world religion, and they're close enough to the original sources if they were second had - which I said was a possibility.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

19 Dec 2011, 3:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.


What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


It shows that it is completely unreliable.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2011, 3:23 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.


What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


It shows that it is completely unreliable.


Historians would beg to differ.
I'm not saying you have to accept the miracles and theology; but these are still invaluable historical documents.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

19 Dec 2011, 3:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Because they are accounts of the beginning of a world religion, and they're close enough to the original sources if they were second had - which I said was a possibility.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The bolded really has no relevance on it's own as far as historical validity goes. I suppose it's all on less than solid ground then.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2011, 3:51 pm

Lecks wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Because they are accounts of the beginning of a world religion, and they're close enough to the original sources if they were second had - which I said was a possibility.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The bolded really has no relevance on it's own as far as historical validity goes. I suppose it's all on less than solid ground then.


That's really a matter of opinion.
But it should also be added that Paul's letters are older than the Gospels, and they expound theology all the more than any of the Gospels, with the exception of John.
As one writer described them as, what "historians drool over."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

19 Dec 2011, 4:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.


What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


It shows that it is completely unreliable.


Historians would beg to differ.
I'm not saying you have to accept the miracles and theology; but these are still invaluable historical documents.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


They are stories that cannot be verified, valuable maybe, but they are only stories and they proove nothing other than people were writing and had very vivid imaginations way before the likes of Shakespear.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2011, 4:19 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:

Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?

Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?

Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?

Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?


And what are the answers?


The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.

Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.


These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.


What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


It shows that it is completely unreliable.


Historians would beg to differ.
I'm not saying you have to accept the miracles and theology; but these are still invaluable historical documents.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


They are stories that cannot be verified, valuable maybe, but they are only stories and they proove nothing other than people were writing and had very vivid imaginations way before the likes of Shakespear.


They are a look into the beginning of a new religion - and any documentation of that - even if you don't believe it - is in itself invaluable.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer