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

How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Page 19 of 22 [ 339 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 2:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
Jumping Jehosephat! You guys are talking about fiction!

ruveyn


No s**t! You could figure that out from the OP



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 2:58 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2011, 3:01 am

MCalavera wrote:

Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

.


If one leaves out stuff like the Virgin Birth and the "miracles" it is even quasi-plausible.

Virgins don't give birth except through artificial insemnation.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:05 am

ruveyn wrote:
MCalavera wrote:

Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

.


If one leaves out stuff like the Virgin Birth and the "miracles" it is even quasi-plausible.

Virgins don't give birth except through artificial insemnation.

ruveyn


quasi-plausible is still good enough especially when we're speaking of ancient times.

There are other figures in Jesus' time whose existence we don't doubt that have less evidence than Jesus.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:05 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.


The answer to your questions requires no effort on my part. It was you who brought them up to prove your case not mine. I am sure you know that a negative cannot be proved. So should I ask you to prove to me that pre historic man had no stories about the suns apparent movements during the winter solstice?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:07 am

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.


The answer to your questions requires no effort on my part. It was you who brought them up to prove your case not mine. I am sure you know that a negative cannot be proved. So should I ask you to prove to me that pre historic man had no stories about the suns apparent movements during the winter solstice?


Except I'm not telling you to prove a negative.

I'm telling you to come up with a better collective answer to the proposed questions.

I made a case (because the burden was on me) and now it's up to you to rebut it.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:09 am

Whether or not Jesus existed, the man in question did not make up christianity, St Paul did, and you only have to read him to see he was eager to propose a new belief system on people living 1900 years ago. If Jesus did exist, we can safely assume he knows nothing about this.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:11 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Whether or not Jesus existed, the man in question did not make up christianity, St Paul did, and you only have to read him to see he was eager to propose a new belief system on people living 1900 years ago. If Jesus did exist, we can safely assume he knows nothing about this.


Answer the proposed questions.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:13 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.


The answer to your questions requires no effort on my part. It was you who brought them up to prove your case not mine. I am sure you know that a negative cannot be proved. So should I ask you to prove to me that pre historic man had no stories about the suns apparent movements during the winter solstice?


Except I'm not telling you to prove a negative.

I'm telling you to come up with a better collective answer to the proposed questions.

I made a case (because the burden was on me) and now it's up to you to rebut it.


I already have. The issues you brought up are evidence that the gospels were written with little knowledge of the supposed prophecies in the OT. You cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus lived and was not a god, in which case the OT is irrelevant. Or Jesus did not exist, in which case the OT is still irrelevant.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:18 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Whether or not Jesus existed, the man in question did not make up christianity, St Paul did, and you only have to read him to see he was eager to propose a new belief system on people living 1900 years ago. If Jesus did exist, we can safely assume he knows nothing about this.


Answer the proposed questions.


The gospel writers got it wrong, just like everything else they wrote.

If they wrote about a real historical person, then why did they attach a huge amount of unlikely events to him? Why did they make their own writing invalid by doing this? They must have assumed that it was only to be used in the short term and had no idea that 1900 years later people would be reading their words with a more sceptical eye.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:20 am

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.


The answer to your questions requires no effort on my part. It was you who brought them up to prove your case not mine. I am sure you know that a negative cannot be proved. So should I ask you to prove to me that pre historic man had no stories about the suns apparent movements during the winter solstice?


Except I'm not telling you to prove a negative.

I'm telling you to come up with a better collective answer to the proposed questions.

I made a case (because the burden was on me) and now it's up to you to rebut it.


I already have. The issues you brought up are evidence that the gospels were written with little knowledge of the supposed prophecies in the OT. You cannot have it both ways.


Wrong because "Mark" shows knowledge and awareness of OT prophecies. So why didn't he include the Bethlehem bit before "Matthew" and "Luke"?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:21 am

Robdemanc wrote:
If they wrote about a real historical person, then why did they attach a huge amount of unlikely events to him?


Because they wanted to convince the audience that Jesus was the Messiah not just some normal human being who failed on the cross.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:27 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I was answering the other posters argument. I would say there is more evidence for Alexander than for Jesus though


Yes, there is more for Alexander than there is for Jesus, but there's still evidence Jesus existed. That's the point.

You can say Jesus couldn't have existed but you have to make a good case for it. You can't just say "no" or bring up "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or whatever intended fiction story you bring up.

You also have to make an effort to answer the questions I proposed for the historical Jesus.


The answer to your questions requires no effort on my part. It was you who brought them up to prove your case not mine. I am sure you know that a negative cannot be proved. So should I ask you to prove to me that pre historic man had no stories about the suns apparent movements during the winter solstice?


Except I'm not telling you to prove a negative.

I'm telling you to come up with a better collective answer to the proposed questions.

I made a case (because the burden was on me) and now it's up to you to rebut it.


I already have. The issues you brought up are evidence that the gospels were written with little knowledge of the supposed prophecies in the OT. You cannot have it both ways.


Wrong because "Mark" shows knowledge and awareness of OT prophecies. So why didn't he include the Bethlehem bit before "Matthew" and "Luke"?


You are dismantling your own "evidence" by pointing out inconsistencies. What are you saying? That Mark was right but Mathew and Luke were wrong? Why are we to believe one and not another?



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:32 am

A more interesting question is why did Philo of Alexandria (20BC - 50AD) not write about the crucifiction of Jesus? If the jews crucified Jesus then he should have mentioned this.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:42 am

Robdemanc wrote:
A more interesting question is why did Philo of Alexandria (20BC - 50AD) not write about the crucifiction of Jesus? If the jews crucified Jesus then he should have mentioned this.


The Jews did not crucify Jesus; the Romans did - admittedly after a pack of thieving, pro-Roman collaborators sold him out to Pontius Pilate because Jesus was openly critical of their money making scams in the temple.

And during his lifetime, Jesus probably only captured local attention. It was only after his death and - according to true believers - his resurrection, did he become literally known all over the Roman world as his new religion exploded everywhere.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:46 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
A more interesting question is why did Philo of Alexandria (20BC - 50AD) not write about the crucifiction of Jesus? If the jews crucified Jesus then he should have mentioned this.


The Jews did not crucify Jesus; the Romans did - admittedly after a pack of thieving, pro-Roman collaborators sold him out to Pontius Pilate because Jesus was openly critical of their money making scams in the temple.

And during his lifetime, Jesus probably only captured local attention. It was only after his death and - according to true believers - his resurrection, did he become literally known all over the Roman world as his new religion exploded everywhere.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If the Romans crucified him then Philo should have known this.