[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36452596]Besides, your claim that the existence of Christians is insubstantial is disingenuous if you can't provide an alternative explanation.[/QUOTE]
Do you also come from the "scientists can't tell us how the universe began, therefore GOD" school of thought?
My parents are a strong catholic family, going to church every weekend, Then I though to myself, why would I want to devote me life to this invisible man in the sky who apparently is always watching me... then I also discovered santa didn't exist, I lost all faith after that.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;36452917]Do you also come from the "scientists can't tell us how the universe began, therefore GOD" school of thought?[/QUOTE]
Also, the alternate explanation is that people are stupid and they make shit up.
Occam's Razor dictates. He says Christians wouldn't worship a fictional deity, and yet they don't give credence to the existence of [I]any other[/I] mythological figure. They don't figure Romulus and Remus were actually raised by a mother wolf.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36452662]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]
[Quote="Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2"]...John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man...[/quote]
[quote="Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3"]...Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. ...[/quote]
[url]http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm[/url]
(You'll kill me for where I got that source I know, but it's irrelevant to the historiography involved)
This passage of the [I]Antiquities of the Jews[/I] (i.e: 18.3.3) is known as the [I]Testimonium Flavianum[/I] is pretty much where all the historiography of Josephus' mentions of Jesus is concentrated, as it has been interpreted as planted by a later Christian translator. However, the passage 20.9.1:
[quote="Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1"]...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...[/quote]
Is a less contested passage on the basis of its neutrality in discussing Jesus. Rather than being definitively Christ, it merely implies that people call him Christ.
However, Josephus was writing after the death of Jesus, which means that for whatever references he makes we must apply our critical thinking caps when dealing with them. Multiple references to a [I]Christus[/I] coupled with some semi-dubious direct references to Jesus, while not in any sense definitive or complete, does point towards a Jesus Christ figure existing and being remembered well within a century after his death. However, like you have been pressing, there is no way to accurately verify definitively whether he existed or not. As for the Occam's razor argument, I believe that less assumption is involved in Jesus existing (on the basis of the evidence we have) than him not existing (on the basis of multiple messiahs/evidence is flimsy) Whether he was literally God is religious belief and therefore has no relevance in a historiographical discussion.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Also Lankist I would like to see the evidence you have for multiple Christ figures existing around the time Jesus is supposed to have existed
No one seems to have addressed my claim that being written many years after the death of Jesus, the scripture and the names you people keep mentioning would be highly inaccurate if not outright frauds
[QUOTE=download;36453434]No one seems to have addressed my claim that being written many years after the death of Jesus, the scripture and the names you people keep mentioning would be highly inaccurate if not outright frauds[/QUOTE]
Lest we forget the names of the many messiahs of the time have often just been translated as "jesus"
Why do any Christians even give a shit if there was even a man called Jesus? The only reason we're supposed to give a shit about him in the first place is because he was the son of god/performed all of these miracles. Obviously you'd have to be deeply irrational to think that happened, and a [I]man[/I] existing called Jesus hardly validates any of the claims Christianity makes.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36453363]Words[/QUOTE]
So a guy named Jesus existed at some point in time.
This is evidence of Jesus Christ because-
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36453363]Also Lankist I would like to see the evidence you have for multiple Christ figures existing around the time Jesus is supposed to have existed[/QUOTE]
Here's a good list, wikipedia solely being an aggregate in this case.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants[/url]
Jesus of Nazarath wasn't even the first.
Simon of Peraea
Athronges
Jesus of Nazareth
Judas of Galilee (yes, THAT Judas. He was also recorded by Flavius as claiming to be Messiah.)
Menahem ben Judah
Theudas
Vespasian
John of Gischala
And that's only First Century. It's generally suspected that many of the stories [I]about[/I] Biblical Jesus Christ were actually actions of a bunch of these guys falsely attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. There is nothing outside of religious scripture tying the biblical character of Jesus to the guy named Jesus (Joshua, really) of Nazareth. There is barely any record of Jesus of Nazareth even existing [I]outside[/I] of the mythological figure, let alone that he's the broski the Bible talks about. He didn't even [I]show up[/I] in the Bible for centuries later.
[QUOTE=download;36453434]No one seems to have addressed my claim that being written many years after the death of Jesus, the scripture and the names you people keep mentioning would be highly inaccurate if not outright frauds[/QUOTE]
I just did exactly that.
Elaborating however, unfortunately many of the Ancient Writers we base our knowledge off had access to earlier writings (lost to us) which they reference. It is entirely possible for a writer writing after the event to be accurate (although it does present interpretative challenges). Flavius Josephus is assumed to have drawn upon both Roman and Jewish sources, of which I don't know personally but its totally plausible to dig around and find them
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36453549]I just did exactly that. [/QUOTE]
No you didn't. You provided nothing which ties Biblical Jesus Christ to Jesus of Nazareth. You merely proved the latter was a person at some point in history, which has not been in dispute.
And, again, when Flavius refers to Jesus as being "called Christ," he means people claim he is the Messiah. "Christ" is [I]not[/I] a name.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36453554]No you didn't. You provided nothing which ties Biblical Jesus Christ to Jesus of Nazareth. You merely proved the latter was a person at some point in history, which has not been in dispute.
And, again, when Flavius refers to Jesus as being "called Christ," he means people claim he is the Messiah. "Christ" is [I]not[/I] a name.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how proving the veracity of what was written correlates with me attributing that person the Jesus of Nazareth, unless you are drawing conclusion which aren't there?
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36453493]So a guy named Jesus existed at some point in time.
This is evidence of Jesus Christ because-[/quote]
Thank you for this input!
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36453594]I don't see how proving the veracity of what was written correlates with me attributing that person the Jesus of Nazareth, unless you are drawing conclusion which aren't there?[/QUOTE]
Dude, the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ is the same as the difference between Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
You are using proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, and you've provided no tangible evidence to prove those two are related in any way.
Rather than debate whether Jesus existed, lets debate if we can attribute ANY of the scriptures to him.
He could have, he could not have. Chances are someone called Jesus existed at that time. Was he the son of God? Nope, did he say the things in the Bible though? Maybe, was he related to religion at all? For all we know he might have been a begger
[QUOTE=Lankist;36453673]Dude, the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ is the same as the difference between Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
You are using proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, and you've provided no tangible evidence to prove those two are related in any way.[/QUOTE]
It's generally assumed theologically that Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus Christ but these Christian fellows I hear about aren't big on logic when it comes to their scripture so the whole premise is belief. wowza.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
fuck it, it [B]is[/B] assumed theologically
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36453723]It's generally assumed theologically that Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus Christ[/QUOTE]
I don't give a damn about the theology. If you're going to invoke faith that they're the same person then why are you trying to give proof?
No shit Christians [I]believe[/I] their own fucking religion. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the facts.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36453728]I don't give a damn about the theology. If you're going to invoke faith that they're the same person then why are you trying to give proof?
No shit Christians [I]believe[/I] their own fucking religion. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the facts.[/QUOTE]
I thought I was giving proof of a historical figure called Jesus, the Jesus that is considered the Jesus in the Bible Jesus, to people who said that Jesus who is considered to be the Jesus in the Bible Jesus didn't exist!?
I could accept the existence of a Jesus.
But I've always had this idea that maybe he was just a really, really good con artist. v:v:v
Christianity only reached a recognizable form in the early 300s when it started to go into politics and had enough central teachings that it could start to garner influence at the expense of other Christian and Jewish sects.
Even the New Testament is evidence for the fragmented start of Christianity, as many of the things Jesus did are still argued over by many people and some of his teachings/actions contradicted each other, along with the fact that if he was such a famous figure, then everyone not only in the Roman Empire would know about him, but so would the Parthian Empire and beyond. Minus a few horribly sourced texts which rarely mention Jesus by name which had bad information, there are no reliable writings of him.
[QUOTE=Mr mellow;36450157]You may be in the wrong forum, most people don't believe in what you think the "real" story is around here. In fact, unless I am mistaken, most of the forum is atheist.[/QUOTE]
Aliens
There may have been an influential, inspired man named Jesus. But other than that, there is no reason to physically believe he had magic powers.
I think "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a good interpretation to the reality of the story. Great movie and just proves that Willem Dafoe is Jesus.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;36450967]I'm not well versed in first century history, but I think it's entirely possible for Jesus, the man, to have existed. He was a carpenter that became a prophet, and got executed, becoming a martyr and holy symbol of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if Jesus Christ was never executed by the Romans. Christianity will still exist but The Christianity cross would not be invented, Islam might not exist as a result.
[QUOTE=Jaks0;36450190]I put real in quotes cause I don't think it is.. I don't have a religion but don't wanna be labeled as an atheist so my religious status is just confused..[/QUOTE]
so you're agnostic
here's an idea
What if all those "miracles" happened
stay with me here
what if they happened
listen
not because he was an alien
still with me?
but because they actually never happened and the bible is full of shit
[QUOTE=prooboo;36464962]here's an idea
What if all those "miracles" happened
stay with me here
what if they happened
listen
not because he was an alien
still with me?
but because they actually never happened and the bible is full of shit[/QUOTE]
I would rate you Zing if I could
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;36458122]so you're agnostic[/QUOTE]
don't label people. they do not want to be labelled.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467077]don't label people. they do not want to be labelled.[/QUOTE]
So we should all just stop using words which describe conditions of people.
"I don't believe in God but I don't want you to describe me with a word which literally means 'one who does not believe in god(s)'!"
Get over yourself, dude. Stop using language if you don't want people to use words which describe you.
Fucking ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467094]So we should all just stop using words which describe conditions of people.
"I don't believe in God but I don't want you to describe me with a word which literally means 'one who does not believe in god(s)'!"
Get over yourself, dude.[/QUOTE]
I'm over myself.
However I know how atheists like to bully agnostics hence why this whole labelling game should be scrapped.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467112]I'm over myself.
However I know how atheists like to bully agnostics hence why this whole labelling game should be scrapped.[/QUOTE]
That's because 'agnostics' are illiterate people who don't know what fucking gnosticism is.
They tend to be condescending assholes who feel like they're superior to both sides just because they refuse to acknowledge the meanings of words.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467114]That's because 'agnostics' are illiterate people who don't know what fucking gnosticism is.
They tend to be condescending assholes who feel like they're superior to both sides.[/QUOTE]
Well this is the kind of game I didn't want to start.
Both sides are condescending to each other, heck 99% of these arguments are a game of who can condescend another better.
If I personally see any instance of labelling or someone being an imbecile then I'm out.
Believe it or not, I have had a perfectly worthy discussion about religion with a Mormon. Now if you manage to do that, then you have my praise. But seeing as you can't even do that with your own, then it's fairly unlikely that will happen.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467143]Believe it or not, I have had a perfectly worthy discussion about religion with a Mormon. Now if you manage to do that, then you have my praise. But seeing as you can't even do that with your own, then it's fairly unlikely that will happen.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you really changed the world that day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.