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

How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

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

20 Dec 2011, 3:59 am

Robdemanc wrote:
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.


And did Philo know about all the literally thousands of people the Romans crucified every year?

-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, 4:06 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
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.


And did Philo know about all the literally thousands of people the Romans crucified every year?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Perhaps not, but if that were the case we would have to accept that jesus was a nobody.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 4:11 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
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.


And did Philo know about all the literally thousands of people the Romans crucified every year?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Perhaps not, but if that were the case we would have to accept that jesus was a nobody.


I already said, he probably only had local fame, which was enough to get the temple priests who had a good thing fleecing the people on one hand, and collaborating with the Romans on the other, pissed off at him. It was only after Jesus' death that he became the most famous (or infamous, if you go by the Roman and Jewish authorities) man in the world in good time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 4:48 am

Robdemac is not paying any attention at all to the point being made.

No, I never said Mark was right in everything.

You still haven't answered my questions with a mythicist answer that's better than my answer.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:26 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemac is not paying any attention at all to the point being made.

No, I never said Mark was right in everything.

You still haven't answered my questions with a mythicist answer that's better than my answer.


Firstly you have not given answers that prove the gospels are true, in fact your answers prove the gospels are contradictary.

Secondly, I think I am paying attention as I have given your answers thought and concluded they are not evidence for the existence of Jesus, otherwise we can say the mistakes in any work of fiction are evidence that the fictional characters exist.

Thirdly, mythicists have a lot more amunition in that the vast majority of the gospels are dismissed even by these historians that you hold up as experts to the existence of Christ.

And finally, the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John have been discredited by the very people who wrote them. If they wanted us to believe that a man named Jesus existed, they should have known better than to include within their writings a string of unlikely events and scenarios for this man.

So your questions do not deserve an answer other than the whole story is questionable, and if the whole of it is questionable then so are the minor details you have raised.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:30 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
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.


And did Philo know about all the literally thousands of people the Romans crucified every year?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Perhaps not, but if that were the case we would have to accept that jesus was a nobody.


I already said, he probably only had local fame, which was enough to get the temple priests who had a good thing fleecing the people on one hand, and collaborating with the Romans on the other, pissed off at him. It was only after Jesus' death that he became the most famous (or infamous, if you go by the Roman and Jewish authorities) man in the world in good time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:42 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Firstly you have not given answers that prove the gospels are true, in fact your answers prove the gospels are contradictary.


Red herring. I'm not aiming to prove the Gospels are ultimately true.

Quote:
Secondly, I think I am paying attention as I have given your answers thought and concluded they are not evidence for the existence of Jesus, otherwise we can say the mistakes in any work of fiction are evidence that the fictional characters exist.


Every thing has a context of its own. Let me know of any fictional book trying to promote a figure as a historical Messiah and savior of the oppressed from their overlords and then we can do some comparing.

Quote:
Thirdly, mythicists have a lot more amunition in that the vast majority of the gospels are dismissed even by these historians that you hold up as experts to the existence of Christ.


Red herring and straw man.

Quote:
And finally, the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John have been discredited by the very people who wrote them. If they wanted us to believe that a man named Jesus existed, they should have known better than to include within their writings a string of unlikely events and scenarios for this man.


Except that back then almost everyone believed miracles were possible. The question back then wasn't "Do miracles ever happen?" but more "How did these miracles come about? From God or from some malevolent entity?"

Quote:
So your questions do not deserve an answer other than the whole story is questionable, and if the whole of it is questionable then so are the minor details you have raised.


You don't have much awareness of the context of that time. That's why you don't understand why those questions are important to answer.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:44 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.


Jesus was practically a nobody during his own lifetime. He was just one of many others like him. Ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana?

The Gospels aim to exaggerate for theological purposes. Our job is to discern the bits that pass the criterion of dissimilarity from the bits that don't in order to reach the most valid conclusion a historian can reach.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:46 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.


Jesus was practically a nobody during his own lifetime. He was just one of many others like him. Ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana?

The Gospels aim to exaggerate for theological purposes. Our job is to discern the bits that pass the criterion of dissimilarity from the bits that don't in order to reach the most valid conclusion a historian can reach.


Why are you even bothering? If as you believe the man was a nobody then what will it prove one way or another if he existed?



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

20 Dec 2011, 6:51 am

Why does it even matter if Jesus really existed? The message is what matters, not the man.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:52 am

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.


Jesus was practically a nobody during his own lifetime. He was just one of many others like him. Ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana?

The Gospels aim to exaggerate for theological purposes. Our job is to discern the bits that pass the criterion of dissimilarity from the bits that don't in order to reach the most valid conclusion a historian can reach.


Why are you even bothering? If as you believe the man was a nobody then what will it prove one way or another if he existed?


Why does it bother you if there's evidence and a good case Jesus may have existed?

It's not like believing Jesus was real means Christianity must be true. So what are you afraid of exactly? Are you afraid that this may mean one less argument to use against Christians?

If so, you don't have much confidence in your position against Christianity.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:53 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Why does it even matter if Jesus really existed? The message is what matters, not the man.


It matters because truth and evidence matters to me. If evidence comes along in the future showing that Jesus didn't really exist, I'll be the first to espouse it.

What message? Jesus' message wasn't for you anyway.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:56 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.


Jesus was practically a nobody during his own lifetime. He was just one of many others like him. Ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana?

The Gospels aim to exaggerate for theological purposes. Our job is to discern the bits that pass the criterion of dissimilarity from the bits that don't in order to reach the most valid conclusion a historian can reach.


Why are you even bothering? If as you believe the man was a nobody then what will it prove one way or another if he existed?


Why does it bother you if there's evidence and a good case Jesus may have existed?

It's not like believing Jesus was real means Christianity must be true. So what are you afraid of exactly? Are you afraid that this may mean one less argument to use against Christians?

If so, you don't have much confidence in your position against Christianity.


I have already said that I do not care one way or the other. The only reason I am engaging in this discussion with you is because on another thread you called me "deluded" and said I was spreading lies. Plus, you have made a big deal out of the absence of evidence of stories told by our ancestors who had not yet invented writing. So I wish to draw your attention to the fact that even after writing had been invented thousands of years prior, the writers of the new testament cannot even present an unambigious and believable case for the truth of the story of jesus.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

20 Dec 2011, 6:57 am

MCalavera wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Why does it even matter if Jesus really existed? The message is what matters, not the man.


It matters because truth and evidence matters to me. If evidence comes along in the future showing that Jesus didn't really exist, I'll be the first to espouse it.

What message? Jesus' message wasn't for you anyway.


Since history is written by the winners, you'll never know for sure if Jesus existed.

Uh... what? So a message of peace and love has a time limit?


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 6:59 am

Robdemanc wrote:
I have already said that I do not care one way or the other. The only reason I am engaging in this discussion with you is because on another thread you called me "deluded" and said I was spreading lies. Plus, you have made a big deal out of the absence of evidence of stories told by our ancestors who had not yet invented writing. So I wish to draw your attention to the fact that even after writing had been invented thousands of years prior, the writers of the new testament cannot even present an unambigious and believable case for the truth of the story of jesus.


Because they didn't. It's historians who can.

Are you getting it now?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:02 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
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.


And did Philo know about all the literally thousands of people the Romans crucified every year?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Perhaps not, but if that were the case we would have to accept that jesus was a nobody.


I already said, he probably only had local fame, which was enough to get the temple priests who had a good thing fleecing the people on one hand, and collaborating with the Romans on the other, pissed off at him. It was only after Jesus' death that he became the most famous (or infamous, if you go by the Roman and Jewish authorities) man in the world in good time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Philo had strong links with Rome, Greece and Egypt. He was said to have visited Jeruslem during his life. The gospels indicate that jesus travelled far and wide, even by boat. If the Romans had crucified him for whatever reason then it must have been a low key affair. It is neither proof of his existence, or proof of his non existence. But it does seem to support the latter.


Jesus traveled far and wide? The Gospels say no such thing. As a child, he had lived for a few years in Egypt with his parents, but they returned to Judea where he spent the rest of his life.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer