Do you believe in a god? Yes? You're a theist. No? You're an atheist.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36451168]They do, actually. Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and others.[/QUOTE]
Flavius was born after Jesus, and the source referencing Jesus is alleged to be forged. Also there's the fact that the religion was barely known at the time, even in Palestine. Even if he was accurate, he makes little mention of the rest of Jesuses life.
Tacitus is also dodgy, given that his writings talk about Nero needing a scapegoat for the burning of Rome. (He didn't, he wasn't even near the city at the time of the fire) There's also no other evidence that Nero persecuted the Jews/Christians, especially given that the population of both in Rome at the time was non-existent.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36451564]Your literally not allowed to be an atheist until you start promoting it?[/QUOTE]
Promotion is just the mere act of not pretending to be religious. When people ask your religion, just say atheist. You don't need massive banners and internet campaigns to promote it.
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;36451553]if being an atheist means i have to identify with people like the amazing atheist then i'd rather tell people i'm just non-religious.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to say you are an atheist, you might as well join the other crowd. If you don't do either you'll be stuck in a meaningless middle ground.
There were dozens of people claiming to be the messiah at the time and a great many of Jesus' "miracles" were just the parlor tricks of various con-artists and charlatans occupying the timespan of about a century and a half.
That's the simple explanation.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36450343]Jesus was a normal guy and the Bible took his life and made it fantastical so they could further the religion they were creating.[/QUOTE]
There isn't any evidence of one single "Jesus." Historically, Jesus isn't even mentioned in any records until a century [I]after[/I] his supposed life.
Ancient Historians are pretty notorious for taking liberties with the truth, so there is a large degree of sorting truth from myth. The academic consensus on Flavius is that it is partially true, so it is not unreasonable to use it as evidence for the existence of the Jesus we know from the bible. Further, the fact that he was born after the life of Jesus, while suspicious, does not mean that the evidence he provides is false. Plutarch for example wrote during the 3rd Century AD on people such as Alexander the Great and Caesar yet provides a wealth of accurate information mixed in with falsifications due to the fact he had access to documents from the eras of the people he was writing about. For Ancient writers, just because they wrote a lot of false material doesn't wholly discredit their writings.
Specifically for Tacitus' Nero passage, the deviation into explaining the term Christian is in no way falsified by the dubiousness of the scapegoating of Christians by Nero, as it is merely an explanation of the term.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452438]There were dozens of people claiming to be the messiah at the time and a great many of Jesus' "miracles" were just the parlor tricks of various con-artists and charlatans occupying the timespan of about a century and a half.
That's the simple explanation.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
There isn't any evidence of one single "Jesus." Historically, Jesus isn't even mentioned in any records until a century [I]after[/I] his supposed life.[/QUOTE]
And that's how a lot of classical history works. Given the power of oral tradition at the time, a lot of recorded history isn't first-hand, but passed down. That doesn't diminish it.
Ultimately, Lonestriper's right. While specific details can be sketchy, there's simply too many references to Christ and early Christians to claim that Jesus never existed, and was fabricated by... who? Why?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36452452]Plutarch for example wrote during the 3rd Century AD on people such as Alexander the Great and Caesar yet provides a wealth of accurate information mixed in with falsifications due to the fact he had access to documents from the eras of the people he was writing about.[/quote]
Those people also happened to have detailed records [I]during[/I] their lifetimes. Had they not, there wouldn't be any records [I]after[/I].
[quote]Specifically for Tacitus' Nero passage, the deviation into explaining the term Christian is in no way falsified by the dubiousness of the scapegoating of Christians by Nero, as it is merely an explanation of the term.[/QUOTE]
You aren't getting what I'm saying. Even Tacitus didn't tie Biblical Jesus to an actual person. People were just as deluded then as they are now. Simply saying "they're cool w/ jesus" does not support the idea that Jesus ever actually existed. He was just as fictional then as he is now.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;36452417]Promotion is just the mere act of not pretending to be religious. When people ask your religion, just say atheist. You don't need massive banners and internet campaigns to promote it.
If you don't want to say you are an atheist, you might as well join the other crowd. If you don't do either you'll be stuck in a meaningless middle ground.[/QUOTE]
Apatheism would like a word with you.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452480]And that's how a lot of classical history works. Given the power of oral tradition at the time, a lot of recorded history isn't first-hand, but passed down. That doesn't diminish it.[/QUOTE]
Uhh yes it fucking does, because that isn't how classical history works at all.
The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the entire fucking Arabic world kept detailed records of shit that happened [I]at the time that it was happening.[/I] There [I]are[/I] first-hand records from those eras. The Egyptians were particularly dutiful about it.
To [I]not[/I] have first-hand records is like believing oral history about the first man to discover fire. It's unsubstantiated horse shit diluted by religious zealotry.
Tacitus does, actually: Annals speaks of a Christus executed by Pontius Pilate. Besides, how do you explain all the evidence for Christ and Christians, then - was it all just a spontaneous delusion?
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452513]Tacitus does, actually: Annals speaks of a Christus executed by Pontius Pilate.[/QUOTE]
And am I arguing that [I]Christians[/I] never existed?
No. I'm saying [I]Jesus[/I] never existed.
Plenty of Roman governors executed plenty of Christians. That doesn't prove Jesus was legit.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452502]Uhh yes it fucking does, because that isn't how classical history works at all.
The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the entire fucking Arabic world kept detailed records of shit that happened [I]at the time that it was happening.[/I] There [I]are[/I] first-hand records from those eras. The Egyptians were particularly dutiful about it.
To [I]not[/I] have first-hand records is like believing oral history about the first man to discover fire. It's unsubstantiated horse shit diluted by religious zealotry.[/QUOTE]
Evidently not, given the number of recounts in Classical History. Are they all lies?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452514]And am I arguing that [I]Christians[/I] never existed?
No. I'm saying [I]Jesus[/I] never existed.[/QUOTE]
Then where did the early Christians come from? Not "Christus"?
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452516]Evidently not, given the number of recounts in Classical History. Are they all lies?[/QUOTE]
We don't take mythological figures to have any basis in reality.
Nobody figures Wotan and Thor were based on real dude.
Nobody believes that Romulus and Remus really did build Rome.
And no serious historian figures Jesus was a real dude.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452516]Evidently not, given the number of recounts in Classical History. Are they all lies?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Then where did the early Christians come from? Not "Christus"?[/QUOTE]
I think the point Lankist is arguing is that Jesus as we all see him was not real, there probably was a dude called jesus from nazareth who was indeed a carpanter who got nailed to some wood, but beyond that it's probably bullshit.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452516]Then where did the early Christians come from? Not "Christus"?[/QUOTE]
Uhh, so people can't make up words?
FYI the name "christ" is a MISTRANSLATION across from Hebrew. So is Jesus. Jesus' name was mistranslated from Joshua. (like, HUNDREDS of years later.)
Christians got their name from fucking translation discrepancies between Hebrew and Latin. Not from an actual dude.
That's like arguing Buddha actually fasted for months because there are people called Buddhists. Fucking nonsense.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36452543]I think the point Lankist is arguing is that Jesus as we all see him was not real, there probably was a dude called jesus from nazareth who was indeed a carpanter who got nailed to some wood, but beyond that it's probably bullshit.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that the Biblical Jesus character is wholly unsubstantiated. There is no record of him, specifically, anywhere.
There are records of a [I]bunch[/I] of charlatans playing Messiah at the time, but no single one of them directly correlates to Jesus. It's far more likely that the dozens of 'messiahs' running around during the era had their scams attributed to Jesus wrongly as miracles, if they weren't made up to begin with.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452528]We don't take mythological figures to have any basis in reality.
Nobody figures Wotan and Thor were based on real dude.
Nobody believes that Romulus and Remus really did build Rome.
And no serious historian figures Jesus was a real dude.[/QUOTE]
Funny, Wikipedia's page on Jesus's historical identity disagrees. I quote:
"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, many scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence." Wikipedia's hardly an ideal source, but I don't see you sourcing your claims.
Lankist, your hatred for religion is blinding you. There's too much evidence, too many references to Christians and Christ, for any reasonable historian of Classical history to dismiss Jesus as non-existent. Besides, if your claim is true, how do you answer all of these sources? Are they all fake, or conspiracies?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452550]Uhh, so people can't make up words?
FYI the name "christ" is a MISTRANSLATION across from Hebrew. So is Jesus. Jesus' name was mistranslated from Joshua. (like, HUNDREDS of years later.)
Christians got their name from fucking translation discrepancies between Hebrew and Latin. Not from an actual dude.
That's like arguing Buddha actually fasted for months because there are people called Buddhists. Fucking nonsense.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
What I'm saying is that the Biblical Jesus character is wholly unsubstantiated. There is no record of him, specifically, anywhere.
There are records of a [I]bunch[/I] of charlatans playing Messiah at the time, but no single one of them directly correlates to Jesus. It's far more likely that the dozens of 'messiahs' running around during the era had their scams attributed to Jesus wrongly as miracles, if they weren't made up to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Rather, you're arguing the Buddha never existed even though people are called Buddhists. Hey, try getting some historical scholars that agree with you, alright?
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452564]Lankist, your hatred for religion is blinding you. There's too much evidence, too many references to Christians and Christ, for any reasonable historian of Classical history to dismiss Jesus as non-existent. Besides, if your claim is true, how do you answer all of these sources? Are they all fake, or conspiracies?[/QUOTE]
Please cite this evidence from someplace other than Wikipedia.
Do [I]NOT[/I] cite evidence that Christians existed historically. Cite evidence that a motherfucker named [I]Jesus Christ[/I] who ran around doing shit in the desert in the early 1st century existed.
So far you have only cited that the Romans executed Christians. That's wholly insubstantial.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452564]Rather, you're arguing the Buddha never existed even though people are called Buddhists. Hey, try getting some historical scholars that agree with you, alright?[/QUOTE]
(Also most Buddhists figure Buddha DIDN'T exist. They're pretty okay with naming themselves after a fictional character.)
Go ahead and cite your own, then.
You're the one CLAIMING someone existed.
You do not ask someone to prove a negative.
You need to give your evidence first.
I cannot empirically refute a claim which is unsubstantiated. You made the claim of existence. You provide proof of existence.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452572]Please cite this evidence from someplace other than Wikipedia.
Do [I]NOT[/I] cite evidence that Christians existed historically. Cite evidence that a motherfucker named [I]Jesus Christ[/I] who ran around doing shit in the desert in the early 1st century existed.
So far you have only cited that the Romans executed Christians. That's wholly insubstantial.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Go ahead and cite your own, then.
You're the one CLAIMING someone existed.
You do not ask someone to prove a negative.
You need to give your evidence first.
I cannot empirically refute a claim which is unsubstantiated.[/QUOTE]
Hardly. I've cited evidence from Josephus and Tacitus referring to a Christ, the leader of Christians, killed by Pontius Pilate. Also count in the Gospels, and obviously the Pauline letters. There's evidence for you. Besides, your claim that the existence of Christians is insubstantial is disingenuous if you can't provide an alternative explanation. Given the proximity of early Christian accounts to the actual time of Jesus' life, it's unlikely that these entire cults would exist around someone who didn't exist in their fathers' lifetime - not how Classical societies worked.
I've just cited evidence for Christ. Already done. Don't ask me again.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452481]Those people also happened to have detailed records [I]during[/I] their lifetimes. Had they not, there wouldn't be any records [I]after[/I].[/quote]
We do have first hand accounts though, which are about as good as you are going to get for ancient sources
[quote]You aren't getting what I'm saying. Even Tacitus didn't tie Biblical Jesus to an actual person. People were just as deluded then as they are now. Simply saying "they're cool w/ jesus" does not support the idea that Jesus ever actually existed.[/QUOTE]
However the fact that there are multiple source who all reference a [I]Christus[/I] does provide a strong indication that Jesus did exist. I hate to break it to you Lankist but a lot of Ancient Figures aren't explicitly linked with a person since there is no records that allow a 100% conclusive answer, yet we still consider them to have existed.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452596]Hardly. I've cited evidence from Josephus and Tacitus referring to a Christ, the leader of Christians, killed by Pontius Pilate. Also count in the Gospels, and obviously the Pauline letters. There's evidence for you. Besides, your claim that the existence of Christians is insubstantial is disingenuous if you can't provide an alternative explanation. Given the proximity of early Christian accounts to the actual time of Jesus' life, it's unlikely that these entire cults would exist around someone who didn't exist in their fathers' lifetime - not how Classical societies worked.
I've just cited evidence for Christ. Already done. Don't ask me again.[/QUOTE]
Quote it.
Cite it. MLA or APA, your choice.
You haven't cited jack shit. You've provided no outside evidence. You've simply given your own interpretation of evidence you haven't shared with the rest of the class.
Cite it legit or stop making the claim.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36452606]the fact that there are multiple source who all reference a [I]Christus[/I] does provide a strong indication that Jesus did exist. I hate to break it to you Lankist but a lot of Ancient Figures aren't explicitly linked with a person since there is no records that allow a 100% conclusive answer, yet we still consider them to have existed.[/QUOTE]
"Christ" is the Hebrew word for "Messiah."
The word was used for more than just Jesus' name. It is a [I]title[/I], not a name. If I say "they follow the King," that doesn't give you license to say that they follow George III.
The word "Christian" means "Follower of the Messiah." When Tacitus referenced [I]Christus[/I], he was saying [I]"The Messiah",[/I] not "Jesus Christ." He wasn't referencing a specific person. The title "Christ" wasn't attributed to Jesus until hundreds of years later. Hell, the idea of Messiah had been around for a [I]long[/I]-ass time prior.
Jesus was NOT the only 'Christ' running around at the time.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452610]Quote it.
Cite it. MLA or APA, your choice.
You haven't cited jack shit. You've provided no outside evidence. You've simply given your own interpretation of evidence you haven't shared with the rest of the class.
Cite it legit or stop making the claim.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
"Christ" is the Hebrew word for "Messiah."
It was used for more than just Jesus' name.
The word "Christian" means "Follower of the Messiah."
Jesus was NOT the only 'Christ' running around at the time.[/QUOTE]
Cite what, the ancient sources?
Tacitus, [I]Annals[/I], 15.44.
Josephus, [I]Antiquities[/I], 18.3.3.
The Gospels.
St Paul's Letters.
I've already listed them three times in this thread. Quit wasting my time.
Scholarly evidence?
Ehrman, Bart D. (February 2011). "8. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions. The Death Sentence of Jesus Christ." (EPUB). Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. (First Edition. EPub ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. Retrieved 2 September 2011. "This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people."
Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. He writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."
J. G. D. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit, Volume I: Christology, (Eerdmans / T & T Clark, 1998), page 191.
Done. Now cite your own references, we haven't see any from you.
E: Not to mention the logical contradictions in your argument. You claim that Christians may in fact NOT have been worshipping Christ, but another messiah who was killed by Pilate. If so, why did they claim to follow Jesus, and not the /other/ messiah you speak of, whom they worshipped? That's like me worshipping John, but saying I'm a follower of Mark.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452610]"Christ" is the Hebrew word for "Messiah."
The word was used for more than just Jesus' name.
The word "Christian" means "Follower of the Messiah." When Tacitus referenced [I]Christus[/I], he was saying [I]"The Messiah",[/I] not "Jesus Christ." He wasn't referencing a specific person. The name "Christ" wasn't attributed to Jesus until hundreds of years later.
Jesus was NOT the only 'Christ' running around at the time.[/QUOTE]
Jesus' was explicitly mentioned in Flavius, as was John the Baptist.
I'm sure you can tell me about the other messiahs as well
No, you need to fucking quote what you're talking about from those works, not just copy the entire Wikipedia references page and figure that's good.
Jesus Christ, haven't you ever written a collegiate-level paper?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36452659]Jesus' was explicitly mentioned in Flavius, as was John the Baptist[/QUOTE]
Cite it.
There has been enough of you guys saying people have records without finding them and reading them.
You need to cite more than the name "Flavius" if you want me to address your claims.
You need to cite the works. You need to quote the relevant passages.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452662]No, you need to fucking quote what you're talking about from those works, not just copy the entire Wikipedia references page and figure that's good.
Jesus Christ, haven't you ever written a collegiate-level paper?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Cite it.
There has been enough of you guys saying people have records without finding them.[/QUOTE]
Read the references. Quotes in one. Abridgments on the Wiki page. Frankly, I don't have the books on me, and I won't be finding them. This is semantics - are you accusing me of falsifying my sources? If not, drop this stupid game and actually back up your OWN argument.
E: I actually have no doubt you've already seen the passages - probably looked up the wiki page yourself, where they're there. You're simply pushing this charade to big-note yourself as the /superior/ scholar in this debate, and that's a game I'm not playing. I'm out; contact me when you have some decent material, rather than splitting insignificant hairs.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452653]Not to mention the logical contradictions in your argument. You claim that Christians may in fact NOT have been worshipping Christ, but another messiah who was killed by Pilate. If so, why did they claim to follow Jesus, and not the /other/ messiah you speak of, whom they worshipped? That's like me worshipping John, but saying I'm a follower of Mark.[/QUOTE]
[I]Because Jesus' name is a fucking translation error.[/I]
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452676]Read the references. Quotes in one. Abridgments on the Wiki page. Frankly, I don't have the books on me, and I won't be finding them. This is semantics - are you accusing me of falsifying my sources? If not, drop this stupid game and actually back up your OWN argument.[/QUOTE]
I am not going to read the entire Annals of history just to find one passing reference.
You clearly haven't read the shit you're citing, so why the fuck should I? Hell, you ADMIT you haven't read it, nor do you have the books.
So piss off with your "evidence." Come back when you're willing to spend five minutes verifying your own claims before you "cite" them.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452676]I actually have no doubt you've already seen the passages - probably looked up the wiki page yourself[/QUOTE]
No, I haven't. I don't reference Wikipedia.
You go ahead and quote them directly. I don't know how you can expect me to accept your citations when you don't cite anything [I]from[/I] them.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452676]Read the references. [b]Quotes in one.[/b] Abridgments on the Wiki page. Frankly, I don't have the books on me, and I won't be finding them. [b]This is semantics - are you accusing me of falsifying my sources? If not, drop this stupid game and actually back up your OWN argument.[/b]
E: I actually have no doubt you've already seen the passages - probably looked up the wiki page yourself, where they're there. You're simply pushing this charade to big-note yourself as the /superior/ scholar in this debate, and that's a game I'm not playing. I'm out; contact me when you have some decent material, rather than splitting insignificant hairs.[/QUOTE]
Not good enough, the Onus of Proof lies with you as you have made the positive claim, and then telling people "nope I haven't actually had a look at it myself and I won't be doing so," is not good enough.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36450858]Precisely. It's a pure fallacy to say that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. He is directly referenced in Flavius Josephus and in Tacitus, while Pliny the Younger mentions the persecution of Christ-worshipping Christians. So too the New Testament is obvious evidence for Jesus's existence (if not for his divinity). Say what you like about Jesus as the son of God, but it's now mostly implausible to argue that he never existed, and Christianity was simply invented (and by who? why? Are we supposed to believe that early Christianity simply appeared out of no-where?).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36450756]Wrong, the Roman/Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus wrote of Jesus in his book [I]"Antiquities of the Jews"[/I]
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Ignoring the religious side to the Bible, it is a great source of information in interpreting archaeological sites found in and around Israel which are assumed to be from the dates and events the bible records[/QUOTE]
Looking it up, all of those accounts were written over 50 years (and some times much more) after his supposed death. I would like an account during, or just after his life.
I can see a cult being formed that lead to the creation of the church, we know for a fact the New Testament was combined is about 300AD, and the had a mass council to decide what was the "correct" writing to put in the Bible
[url]http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452610]
"Christ" is the Hebrew word for "Messiah."
[/QUOTE]
Actually, מָשִׁיחַ (roughly pronounced meshiakh) is the Hebrew word for messiah. Christ DOES come from the hebrew word, but I have no idea how. Maybe a mistranslation.
That's nitpicking though.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452513]Tacitus does, actually: Annals speaks of a Christus executed by Pontius Pilate. Besides, how do you explain all the evidence for Christ and Christians, then - was it all just a spontaneous delusion?[/QUOTE]
Tacitus source is almost the exact same as a work by Sulpicius Severus several centuries later. Plus the rest of the information in it is utterly wrong, with regards to Christians in Rome.
Even then he does not mention the name Jesus anywhere.
[QUOTE=NotAName;36452769]Actually, מָשִׁיחַ (roughly pronounced meshiakh) is the Hebrew word for messiah. Christ DOES come from the hebrew word, but I have no idea how. Maybe a mistranslation.
That's nitpicking though.[/QUOTE]
As I said, it's a mistranslation which has become the norm. "Christus" is Latin for "The Christ," in reference to the status as a Messiah.
The word Christ is derived from mistranslated Old Testament scripture in regards to prophecy of the Messiah.
"Christ" isn't a name. It's a title. Meaning "Messiah." Just as "King" is a title for "monarch"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.