Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 18, 2010 at 12:11pm

Wait a minute, you were expecting me to provide proof? For my belief as to whether or not Jesus existed?

I'm sorry. I thought what you wrote was intended to be some form of evidence. I apologize for not recognizing "shits and giggles" when I see it.

I'm curious, what would constitute proof?

Verifiable eyewitness accounts and artifacts such as we have for other historical figures, such as Confucius, who pre-dated Jesus by 500 years. Ever been to the Kong Family Mansion in Qifu, Shindong Province China? I have. You could question the writings, artifacts and buildings we have surrounding the historical Confucius, but it's still more than you have for Jesus, and whatever refutation you make for the historicity of Confucius would apply to what little dubious evidence you have for Jesus.

Would a preponderance (more likely than not) standard of evidence suffice? "Clear and convincing" evidence? Or do you require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Would Socrates meet these criteria?

What I don't accept is what you just did: Shotgunning bad evidence as if quantity of bad evidence is a substitute for quality.

Socrates doesn't meet the criteria for being a verifiable historical figure. Based on evidence, or lack thereof, it's just as likely he was a literary device invented by Plato.

As for the James Ossuary, well, I guess you can't believe everything you see on PBS.

The link I provided wasn't PBS. It was archeological sources. I'm not going to take you seriously if you can't honestly respond to a cite and make a straw-man rebuttal instead. The fact that you didn't bother to check the link speaks volumes for your "research". You've obviously started from a bunch of assumptions and are mining evidence to support it: The exact opposite of intellectually honest inquiry. You didn't check the link because, obviously, you can't be bothered with any evidence that might throw doubt on the conclusion that you are scurrying around to find evidence for.



I surmise, since your information is so much more up to date than mine, that this is a particular interest of yours. Are you prepared to refute the well-settled, time-honored consensus of modern scholarship on the historical Jesus?

Sure. Provide it and I'll evaluate it. I wouldn't claim I would refute any evidence a priori. If you have nothing specific, you are just making the most laughably vague appeal to authority.

You've got me curious. If there was no historical Jesus, where did the Jesus Movement come from?

The same magic ass pixie factory where they made King Arthur.

Who wrote the gospels?

People. And whoever they were they were almost certainly not witnesses to the events depicted in the gospels or contemporaries of Jesus.

Are you claiming the Gospels were written by the apostles?

And, of course... what is your proof?

I don't have to prove a negative. If you claim Jesus existed, the burden of proof is on you. If you claim the gospels were written by the apostles, the burden of proof is on you.

You really aren't prepared to have this argument, are you?

Indeed, what proof do I have that you exist?

I could provide proof for my existence, but I have no way of knowing what proof you have at the moment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 18, 2010 at 12:45pm

Incidentally, had you checked the links you might have seen this:

That's the "James Ossuary". When the police raided the forger's home, it was found stashed in a filthy bathroom. The ossuary an important bit of evidence for the historical Jesus? No. And even the forger didn't think so.

Why you should always check people's cites, and be open to new, even countervailing evidence, and constantly update your sources is obvious.

Your arguments may not improve. You may even have to abandon them.

But you'll look like less of a clown.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 18, 2010 at 2:58pm

Frankly, it never occurred to me that I would be expected to provide "verifiable eye-witness accounts and artifacts, such as we have for historical figures, such as Confucius" in order to "prove" that the historical Jesus existed.

Now it does.

Apparently, Thomas Cahill's "Desire of the Everlasting Hills," being a mere summary of the past 100 years of scholarship on the subject is insufficient, and inadmissible in any case because it would constitute an "appeal to authority."

Maybe it will occur to you that a single pop historian who happens to agree with your a priori assumptions doesn't make for historical consensus.

If this is what your atheist community is all about, I don't want any part of it.

Yeah, that's right: I'm Emperor of Atheist Nexus, you maroon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on March 19, 2010 at 11:30am

All hail the new Emperor! How did you overthrow Brother Richard? =P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nehemiah X Hervey on February 18, 2010 at 8:29am

C, because we don't have any proof. To convict someone of a crime you must have proof and its the same with making claims. I think religious people are afraid to let go of those jewish fairytales the same way a child doesn't want to let go of santa clause, its a form of escapism like t.v., drugs and gossip news.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey on February 18, 2010 at 3:55pm

Maybe, if he was an actual person he founded the largest cult in the world. The claims have been inflated over time until they just seem absurd to anyone who isn't a "true believer". The character of Jesus in the bible is most likely a mix of multiple stories and combined to make him what he is today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 18, 2010 at 5:01pm

Thing is, Jesus didn't found anything, which also speaks against his historicity. What we know as Christianity is derived from the oral traditions of several sects and later codified years, generations even, after the events. What we mostly think of as Christianity is founded by Saul of Tarsus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jimmy converse on March 3, 2010 at 7:41pm

A as far as we can tell, jesus did exist, however all or most claims are false

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on March 4, 2010 at 12:57pm

B. He existed, no doubt, but he was nothing more than a minor rabbi. He provided and taught love, kindness, and acceptance. He did not perform miracles that any modern magician cannot do, though. I bet if he was alive today, he'd also be the best source for good quality marijuana. XD He was the world's first hippy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul A. on March 6, 2010 at 6:18pm

I believe there may have been a man that may have been named Jesus and who may have of been presumed to be of special importance for the people around him, but everything is definitely exaggerated. This person in question, who may have existed, was used to expound a story that had a widely utilized template in antiquity. This person was needed to spread the disease of Christianity.

Go Jesus! Or some indiscernible dude who existed at a time when people knew no better than to not wipe their ass with their hand!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on March 18, 2010 at 12:31am

This person in question, who may have existed, was used to expound a story that had a widely utilized template in antiquity. This person was needed to spread the disease of Christianity.

You say it well, and far less wordy than I.

;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eagle Ashcroft on March 7, 2010 at 2:51pm

I believe Jesus was just a fable as there has never been any proof whatsoever he ever existed, yet there is plenty of actual proof of events, places and people of the time Jesus was supoosed to have existed.
If anything he may have been an eccentric hermit who preached a good message about loving everyone and not condemning anyone and so the tale bearers may have embellished his life by adding the so-called-god-like abilities he was alleged to have like; raising the dead, healing the blind, dying and coming back to life. I believe this as the most likely way things really happened; he was just a man, but an eccentric man who lived alone and had this wonderful philology of love and forgiving people. Its said the bible was written by men who were inspired to write it. The word inspired does not mean that a god told them what to write, but these men were inspired to write these books adding any of their own rhetoric and prejudices as they went along, much like fiction writers do now when making their novels seem almost real. I believe this eccentric man inspired them to turn his life in to a fictional account of what it really wasn't and insecure people were looking for something or someone that could lean on for support and hope and the fictional account of the life of Jesus was their cup of tea.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 39
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• …
• 94
• Next ›
• Page