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

How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:02 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
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?


I never said Jesus existed for sure. My argument is Jesus likely existed because we have a good case for it based on the evidence we have. We don't do certainties when it comes to ancient history. We go by what more likely happened based on what historians can discern from the sources.

Jesus' message was an apocalyptic message meant to prepare people in his own generation for the kingdom of God which was supposed to come in his time but never did. It's been 2000 years now.

And if you want a message of love and peace and whatever, you don't need to give credit for an ancient figure for this.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:03 am

MCalavera wrote:
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?


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:05 am

Robdemanc wrote:
But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.


This isn't a real debate when one side is rejecting the evidence. Please don't conflate us two with actual historians.

And, by the way, creationists still argue against evolution but it doesn't mean there's still a debate about whether evolution is true or not.

Quote:
They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


Who said they aren't?



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:07 am

MCalavera wrote:

Jesus' message was an apocalyptic message meant to prepare people in his own generation for the kingdom of God which was supposed to come in his time but never did. It's been 2000 years now.

And if you want a message of love and peace and whatever, you don't need to give credit for an ancient figure for this.


I suppose it all boils down to interpretation.

No, I don't need or want to give credit to someone that lived 2000 years ago for such a simple message. Thus, I am not Christian.


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:07 am

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
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?


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:10 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
MCalavera wrote:

Jesus' message was an apocalyptic message meant to prepare people in his own generation for the kingdom of God which was supposed to come in his time but never did. It's been 2000 years now.

And if you want a message of love and peace and whatever, you don't need to give credit for an ancient figure for this.


I suppose it all boils down to interpretation.

No, I don't need or want to give credit to someone that lived 2000 years ago for such a simple message. Thus, I am not Christian.


There are many interpretations out there. The question is which one makes more sense based on the evidence we have.

If you go by what the earliest sources for Jesus say, you see an apocalyptic side to him and as you go further in later writings, you notice it diminishes.

I recommend Bart Ehrman's book on the Apocalyptic Jesus.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:12 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Good point. I didn't notice the thousand years bit until now.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:13 am

MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.


This isn't a real debate when one side is rejecting the evidence. Please don't conflate us two with actual historians.

And, by the way, creationists still argue against evolution but it doesn't mean there's still a debate about whether evolution is true or not.


The historians claim that the primary source for their investigations are the gospels. But the gospels are questionable, full of unlikely events, and cannot be verified by external sources. And if, according to you, they are pin pointing details that they think indicate proof of the existence of jesus, which are based on previous and even more unlikely sources, they are chasing rainbows and I think we can safely say they should give up and do something more useful.

The only reason they do it is because they know their books will be bought by millions of christians. It is, and always has been, a very lucrative business.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
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?


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No I have not forgotton the neolithic (said to have begun around 11000BC - 9500BC). Our first known civilisation was Mesopotamia (began around 5000BC). There's your few thousand years.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:18 am

Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.


This isn't a real debate when one side is rejecting the evidence. Please don't conflate us two with actual historians.

And, by the way, creationists still argue against evolution but it doesn't mean there's still a debate about whether evolution is true or not.


The historians claim that the primary source for their investigations are the gospels. But the gospels are questionable, full of unlikely events, and cannot be verified by external sources. And if, according to you, they are pin pointing details that they think indicate proof of the existence of jesus, which are based on previous and even more unlikely sources, they are chasing rainbows and I think we can safely say they should give up and do something more useful.

The only reason they do it is because they know their books will be bought by millions of christians. It is, and always has been, a very lucrative business.


Historians and scholars do it with a lot of other sources outside of Jesus sources. So why should they make an exception for Jesus just for your satisfaction?

You think secular experts who write books actually expressing falsehoods of Christianity are doing so to gain profit from Christian readers?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:21 am

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


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No I have not forgotton the neolithic (said to have begun around 11000BC - 9500BC). Our first known civilisation was Mesopotamia (began around 5000BC). There's your few thousand years.


How do you know there was a neolithic period? How do you know Mesopotamia was the first known civilization? How do you know it began around 5000 BC? How do you know ancient Mesopotamian actually existed? How do you know the Epic of Gilgamesh wasn't just fabricated a couple of centuries ago rather than several thousands of years ago?



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 7:26 am

MCalavera wrote:

Historians and scholars do it with a lot of other sources outside of Jesus sources. So why should they make an exception for Jesus just for your satisfaction?

You think secular experts who write books actually expressing falsehoods of Christianity are doing so to gain profit from Christian readers?


I think a lot of money is made from peoples beliefs and it has gone on for far too long. It is taking the p*ss now.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 1:52 pm

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


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No I have not forgotton the neolithic (said to have begun around 11000BC - 9500BC). Our first known civilisation was Mesopotamia (began around 5000BC). There's your few thousand years.


Cities just didn't spring up out of nowhere. They and the people living in them were the descendants of age old settlements that gradually developed into cities after several thousands of years.
And Neolithic development took much longer in other places in the world.

-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, 2:16 pm

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


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No I have not forgotton the neolithic (said to have begun around 11000BC - 9500BC). Our first known civilisation was Mesopotamia (began around 5000BC). There's your few thousand years.


Cities just didn't spring up out of nowhere. They and the people living in them were the descendants of age old settlements that gradually developed into cities after several thousands of years.
And Neolithic development took much longer in other places in the world.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That is correct and is what I am saying. I am interested in the period between humans living a nomadic, unsettled life, and the first signs of city living (Mesopotamia). So it appears we are talking about a 5-7000 year period between the first evidence of settlers and agriculture (neolithic), and the first signs of civilisation (Mesopotamia). This is an interesting period of our development and a pre requisite of agricultural practice is an understanding of the sun's seasonal cycles.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 Dec 2011, 2:25 pm

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


But historians are not succeeding. The fact that there are debates like this shows that nobody has managed to present a case for the truth of these stories. Historians are simply going round in circles and wasting everybodies time.

They would be better off trying to establish how humanity went from hunter gatherer to civilisation in what seems a few thousand years. This would be much more valuable and interesting. But maybe that is too difficult for them.


A few thousand years between hunter gatherers to city dwellers? I think you forgot the whole Neolithic in between.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No I have not forgotton the neolithic (said to have begun around 11000BC - 9500BC). Our first known civilisation was Mesopotamia (began around 5000BC). There's your few thousand years.


Cities just didn't spring up out of nowhere. They and the people living in them were the descendants of age old settlements that gradually developed into cities after several thousands of years.
And Neolithic development took much longer in other places in the world.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That is correct and is what I am saying. I am interested in the period between humans living a nomadic, unsettled life, and the first signs of city living (Mesopotamia). So it appears we are talking about a 5-7000 year period between the first evidence of settlers and agriculture (neolithic), and the first signs of civilisation (Mesopotamia). This is an interesting period of our development and a pre requisite of agricultural practice is an understanding of the sun's seasonal cycles.


Agreed it was a fascinating process.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



N0tYetDeadFred
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 243
Location: Fortress of Solitude

20 Dec 2011, 4:28 pm

There is more evidence for Jesus than Socrates. In addition to the four Gospel accounts, there were numerous others that were not included. There are numerous letters between the church founders, as well as the account of Josephus. He is also mentioned in the Talmud, although some of those passages could date later. Non-Christian Jews viewed Jesus as a sorcerer, but certainly never disputed his existence.

The Roman government also didn't dispute his existence, neither when Celsus was calling Christians wicked, Nero was burning them, or when Constantine made it the state religion (thus ruining it in my opinion.)

The scholarly consensus is that he existed, period. There was some question when historical criticism started, simply because everything was in question at the time.