Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 1826

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, that would be piano teacher and New Age kook Rene Salm who says that. Back in the real world, actual archaelogists (Zvi Gal, Richard Freund, Fanny Vitto, Nurit Veig, Ross Voss) have excavated the region and have in fact found remains.
They've even found a bathhouse from Roman-era Nazareth.

I'll be very surprised if you can find a single archaelogist who says that Nazareth was uninhabited in the First Century CE. You'll find plenty of kooks and apologists (like Salm and his best pal Frank Zindler) who will say so though.

Don't believe everything you hear.
--- Matt VDB says --- I just gave five of the criteria commonly used to determine exactly that, and you're asking me how I determined this... Unbelievable.

I know. A skeptic, on an Atheist website, asking for evidence from someone demanding that we believe in Jesus. Unbelievable.
Even if somebody did exist who was the seed of the character we now know as Jesus, that guy would fall far short of living up to the mythos of the religious symbol. Personally, I don't really see the significance of of whether Jesus actually existed. It has no bearing on the fact that, even if he did, he was still just a man.
You are wise, Thomas :-)

I better bow out before acrimony sets in. If we beat this dead horse any longer, he might resurrect.
wow, 99 pages of Jesus rant. Didn't think it make it this far.
See what you went and started Jennifer?

;-)
What I forgot to mention in my last post was that even if the historicity of Jesus is just as likely or even more likely than that of Hannibal, that still wouldn't prove the Jesus of the gospels as being a real historical figure, because perhaps in this scenario we should re-consider the supposed historicity of everything from antiquity, because we should always be striving to be better skeptics.
@Matt,

We know certain stars have planets orbiting them despite not being able to see them. The gravitational effect of the planet causes a slight wobble of the star. We know that Hannibal had contemporaneous records of his exploits, despite those records being lost, because those records were referenced by other commentators, both Roman and Carthaginian.

My distinction between Hannibal and Jesus, which I've admitted is a minor one, is that there are no references to contemporaneous records of Jesus. Yes, neither Hannibal or Jesus have any surviving contemporaneous records but, unlike Hannibal, Jesus doesn't have references to contemporaneous records either. There is only a void where evidence of Jesus should be . . . not even a wobble. That's not sophistry . . . that's a real (albeit minor) distinction.
Paul mentions having met the brother of Jesus: James. That's a reference to a "contemporary record".
Tacitus likely got his information from a Roman record. That's contemporary too.
All the gospel writers claim to transmit the word of mouth accounts of eye-witnesses (contemporary).
And later Jewish polemics referred to a long history of previous records too (contemporary).

I'm glad you admit that this is a minor (and practically non-existent) distinction though. Now compare the stature of Hannibal and Jesus and think about the implications of the fact that these small distinctions are the only differences between the source material for them.

What does that tell you about this void you're trying to claim?
--- Matt VDB says --- Paul mentions having met the brother of Jesus: James. That's a reference to a "contemporary record".
Tacitus likely got his information from a Roman record. That's contemporary too.
All the gospel writers claim to transmit the word of mouth accounts of eye-witnesses (contemporary).


Paul also believes in divine miracles performed by Jesus and via his writings, appears to have a hard agenda of 'selling' religion. I don't trust a snake oil salesman to be telling me the truth.

Tacitus "likely" getting his information from contemporary sources is not a reference. It's an opinion/inference of later historians.

The gospel writers ... Damn, this is an Atheist website. Do I really need to explain as I would to a Theist why the gospel writers might not have been totally accurate or altruistic?

The bible is not true just because the bible says its true.
And the ridiculous double standards continue...

"Paul also believes in divine miracles performed by Jesus and via his writings, appears to have a hard agenda of 'selling' religion. I don't trust a snake oil salesman to be telling me the truth."

And Tacitus believed that Caesar ascended to heaven and described various other supernatural events. Thus - according to the syllogism you just made - he's a snake oil salesman and he's obviously not to be trusted. There goes our best source from the ancient world. Well done.

"Tacitus "likely" getting his information from contemporary sources is not a reference. It's an opinion/inference of later historians."

How the fuck would getting your information from a senatorial record made by Pilate or one of his assistants be an "opinion" of later historians? Seriously Jo, now you're just nitpicking and being deliberately obtuse.

"The gospel writers ... Damn, this is an Atheist website. Do I really need to explain as I would to a Theist why the gospel writers might not have been totally accurate or altruistic?"

That's why I said they "claim" to do so - that implies that I don't necessarily believe that myself (yes, I know, those little words are so annoying). But Polybius telling us that he used Roman records (who always happen to make Hannibal look pretty cruel) isn't much better than the gospel writers telling us that they rely on oral tradition from eye-witnesses.
Just a head's up for Matt and other people interested in discussing this topic, there's an interesting thread on the histrorical Jesus here at the JREF forums, James Randi's forum dedicated to skeptical inquiry ( a forum I am enjoying quite a bit)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177059

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service