Well, it means just that: there's no evidence Jesus ever lived. You want to believe otherwise? By all means! But without evidence, it's just that: a belief.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 06:20PM by rt.

There is evidence. There just isn't as much as you'd like.

Please... point me to your "evidence."


Thanks,

HH =)

Good fuck, I feel like an atheist missionary.

As far as evidence goes. Let's all grab our handy-dandy bibles (that is unless you men have gizzed all over them after the whole song of solomon ordeal), and turn to the gospel of mark...

Of course that doesn't prove anything at all, but to say that isn't evidence is absurd.

Try again. BTW, here is a list oa historians who lived during the time of Jesus. PLease point to me thier references to Jeebus. Thanks.:
Aulus Perseus
Columelia
Dio Chrysostom
Justus of Tiberius
Livy
Lucanus
Lucius Florus
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philo Judaeus
Phlegon
Pliny The Elder
Plutarch
Pomponius Mela
Rufus Curtius
Quintillian
Quintus Curtius
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius Caelicius
Theon of Smyrna
Valerius Fiaccus
Valerius Maximus

Have a nice day. =)

HH

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try again. BTW, here is a list oa historians who
> lived during the time of Jesus. PLease point to
> me thier references to Jeebus. Thanks.:
> Aulus Perseus
> Columelia
> Dio Chrysostom
> Justus of Tiberius
> Livy
> Lucanus
> Lucius Florus
> Petronius
> Phaedrus
> Philo Judaeus
> Phlegon
> Pliny The Elder
> Plutarch
> Pomponius Mela
> Rufus Curtius
> Quintillian
> Quintus Curtius
> Seneca
> Silius Italicus
> Statius Caelicius
> Theon of Smyrna
> Valerius Fiaccus
> Valerius Maximus
>
> Have a nice day. =)
>
> HH


These people were writing on subjects that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that would have applied to Jesus. Why should they write about him in a novel or a treatise on Catrheginian agriculture? That list is beyond stupid. I majored in Latin literature and have read many of these authors in the original language. One example. Petronius was not a historian. He was a a satirist. He has one surviving work, the Satyricon. It is a novel about nouveau riche freedmen in the time of Nero and is set in Rome. Why on earth would he have mentioned Jesus in a work like that? And that is assuming he had even heard of him. Sorry, but that list is a total red herring.BTW, many of these guys were not historians. Geez! I do not believe some of the crap that is on the internet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:53PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Happy_Heretic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Try again. BTW, here is a list oa historians
> who
> > lived during the time of Jesus. PLease point
> to
> > me thier references to Jeebus. Thanks.:
> > Aulus Perseus
> > Columelia
> > Dio Chrysostom
> > Justus of Tiberius
> > Livy
> > Lucanus
> > Lucius Florus
> > Petronius
> > Phaedrus
> > Philo Judaeus
> > Phlegon
> > Pliny The Elder
> > Plutarch
> > Pomponius Mela
> > Rufus Curtius
> > Quintillian
> > Quintus Curtius
> > Seneca
> > Silius Italicus
> > Statius Caelicius
> > Theon of Smyrna
> > Valerius Fiaccus
> > Valerius Maximus
> >
> > Have a nice day. =)
> >
> > HH
>
>
> These people were writing on subjects that had
> nothing whatsoever to do with anything that would
> have applied to Jesus. Why should they write about
> him in a novel or a treatise on Catrheginian
> agriculture? That list is beyond stupid. I majored
> in Latin literature and have read many of these
> authors in the original language. One example.
> Petronius was not a historian. He was a a
> satirist. He has one surviving work, the
> Satyricon. It is a novel about nouveau riche
> freedmen in the time of Nero and is set in Rome.
> Why on earth would he have mentioned Jesus in a
> work like that? And that is assuming he had even
> heard of him. Sorry, but that list is a total red
> herring.BTW, many of these guys were not
> historians. Geez! I do not believe som of the crap
> that is on the internet.

This is just about as stupid as saying that Lincoln didn't exist because someone writing about English agriculture in the same approximate period failed to mention him.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is just about as stupid as saying that
> Lincoln didn't exist because someone writing about
> English agriculture in the same approximate period
> failed to mention him.

Ok, first of all, we can do the evidence of looking for the effect, and then determining the cause. This has helped a lot in the field of science. It's hard to see gravity.

You're right that there isn't any from contempory historians of jesus (Josephus would be the first to mention him, and he was after jesus). Jesus was a nobody. He was just another messiah-maniac that thought they would see the end of Rome. These kind of people were a dime a dozen. The difference is that his disciples were able to convince people that he pulled a Houdini.

Honestly though. If you told a scholar that the gospels, epistles, and rise of Christianity weren't evidence at all, you wouldn't be taken seriously.

Edit: I also want to ask if you think that there is anything reliable in the gospels or epistles that would qualify as evidence of actual historical moments. Did Paul ever travel to Rome? Were any of those people real? Maybe someone made up Paul so that Paul could make up jesus. It's all hearsay after all.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:37PM by Freevolved.

"In a court of law that is "hearsay" and NOT considered Evidence."

Not so.

In a court of law hearsay evidence is considered hearsay evidence.

Perhaps you meant to say not admissable evidence, but that's not accurate either, since there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Here you go: In a Court of law hearsay evidence is not admissable unless an exception applies.

But that's not what we are talking about anyway - we are not in a court of law but a court of opinion, and there's no such thing as a hearsay rule (which exists to protect a defendant's right to cross examine his accusers) in the court of public opinion.

Freevolved Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good fuck, I feel like an atheist missionary.
>
> As far as evidence goes. Let's all grab our
> handy-dandy bibles (that is unless you men have
> gizzed all over them after the whole song of
> solomon ordeal), and turn to the gospel of
> mark...
>
> Of course that doesn't prove anything at all, but
> to say that isn't evidence is absurd.

There is the church. Either Jesus was the basis for it or there was a hugh conspiracy theory where Paul convinced the world that a factional and CONTEMPORARY MAN FROM THEIR OWN AREA actually lived. There is NT, there are Jewish authors, there is Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus and there is the fact that contemporary Romans believed he was real even while they were attempted to stamp out his movwment. Why didn't they simply say, "Hey, this guy never lived and we can prove it. Here is Pilate. He never crucified him. Here is his brother James. He will admit that he made him up."? Maybe because he actually lived?

+1. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, as well as the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus[one reference is disputed but the other is not.] There is also the writings of Jewish authors. As far as the old strawman that nobody wrote about him in his lifetime, that is true of lots of ancient people.Even if there were writings, most disn't survive. Nobvody who knows what they are talking about thinks this is at all important,because he wasn't famous in his own lifetime and most of his followers were illiterate. If you want to believe in crazy conspiracy theories that almost no no reputable historians would touch with a ten foot pole, be my guest, but you are only showing your own ignorance.The existence of a human Jesus, not divine, is a given.

"The existence of a human Jesus, not divine, is a given."

A given by who and what? Seems like those who can't provide even a whit of evidence are the ones who use phrases like "it's a given." I have no dog in this fight, I could care less if Jesus was a real person or not, but I would like to see some evidence from those who say he was real. So far, nada.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 06:48PM by lostinutah.

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The existence of a human Jesus, not divine, is a
> given."
>
> A given by who and what? Seems like those who
> can't provide even a whit of evidence are the ones
> who use phrases like "it's a given." I have no dog
> in this fight, I could care less if Jesus was a
> real person or not, but I would like to see some
> evidence from those who say he was real. So far,
> nada.


It is a given among scholars with credentials in the areas of history and Biblical studies and many of them are not believers. You don't have to agree with them, but that is the consensus.Try reading some of them. I have.

Your condescension is hereby noted.

I have read a LOT of them. I took several religious studies classes in college, one of which was The History of the Christian Religion. I can read both Koine and Attic Greek, as well as Hebrew, and I have read a number of religious texts in those languages, including the Koine version (original) of the NT. I've read the obligatory Martin Bubor, Thomas Merton, CS Lewis, etc etc. (I have a graduate degree in linguistics).

I still see no real evidence, and your telling me to go read some books doesn't count.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:43PM by lostinutah.

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your condescension is hereby noted.
>
> I have read a LOT of them. I took several
> religious studies classes in college, one of which
> was The History of the Christian Religion. I can
> read both Koine and Attic Greek, as well as
> Hebrew, and I have read a number of religious
> texts in those languages, including the Koine
> version (original) of the NT. I've read the
> obligatory Martin Bubor, Thomas Merton, CS Lewis,
> etc etc. (I have a graduate degree in
> linguistics).
>
> I still see no real evidence, and your telling me
> to go read some books doesn't count.

Whether you agree or not does not change what scholars believe.

LOL That smacks of "whatever the higher order says must be true."

So, just because someone else says so, you believe it? Evidence please, which scholars saying what?

One other point, I went back and read the end of the closed thread and I would like to say that there are no complete or even incomplete records of Roman crucifixions from the time of Jesus or any other time.There are a very few references to a handful of individuals who were crucified and you could probably count them on the fingers of one hand.Most of the people who were crucified were slaves and there probably never was a record of their deaths since it was done by their masters not the governemnt. As far as rebels, if there were records, they have long since been lost. There may be a reference to a large scale crucifixion such as the foloowers of Spartacus, but there are no records of the individuals involved. The names are long since lost.

I noticed that as well. Jesus would have been a nobody back then anyways. Josephus only mentions him twice, and he practically says some people thought he was the messiah, and that's it. He was not popular at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 06:55PM by Freevolved.

Either way, it's a matter of belief. Many people think that Jesus was, at the very least, based on a real person whereas some do not. There isn't any specific evidence of his nonexistence, nor is there any hard, empirical evidence (such as verifiably ancient first-hand accounts) of his existence.

It doesn't really matter.

On the same note, perhaps there was an historical King Arthur, and perhaps there wasn't. Maybe it's just a really good story. What difference does it make? Arthur isn't my King, and Jesus isn't my Lord and Savior; neither one has any relevance to my life.

It isn't just jesus that the historians ignore. It's the whole story!

No execution of all innocent males two years old or younger

No three hours of darkness in mid day

No earthquake

Those guys wrote about those things when they really happened

One roman even said it was better to be herods dog than his son because he killed his two sons, but not his dogs

Now, if there is a record that this a hole was so power hungry that he killed his own boys so the wouldn't compete for his power, how do you explain NO MENTION when he he kills every two year old or younger?

It isn't only jesus whose absent from history. It's every character and event in the whole story.

Josephus was a forgery by bishop eusebius. Isn't defended by any body anymore.

Don't believe me, please, use google and your noodle, you'll see!

You're mistaking the for the man. Look past the absurdities and hyperbolic assertions, and you may, in fact, see a very real person emerge from the legend. Or maybe not.

I admire Jesus the man and religious radical even if he doesn't exist.

yeshua ben joseph

Fairly common name back in the day. So while the metaphysical part and the stories are not provable you definitely can prove there was a Yeshua Ben Joseph. It is as easy as proving there was a man name John Smith.

What is Wanted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeshua ben joseph
>
> Fairly common name back in the day. So while the
> metaphysical part and the stories are not provable
> you definitely can prove there was a Yeshua Ben
> Joseph. It is as easy as proving there was a man
> name John Smith.

Generations of the Romans had the same names. Big deal. We know which Julius Caesar was famous. You'll have to do better than that.

+1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIhX4BWCPU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:18PM by Freevolved.

Josephus has two references to Jesus and one is not questioned by scholars. The other is at least partly forged but many scholars think the bare bones are authentic.It is not cut and dried. As far as the other stuff, they are myths but that doesnt mean Jesus didn't live. Myths grew up around Caesar, Augustus etc. The fact that they were not conceieved in ridiculous ways or that comets didn't appear at their births and deaths doesn't nullify their existence. Use your noodle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:20PM by bona dea.

Josephus Flavius has only one reference to jc

It's a forgery

The whole story is a myth

Easy, not hard to prove,

I use my noodle all the time, ask my honey!

roflmao Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Josephus Flavius has only one reference to jc
>
> It's a forgery
>
> The whole story is a myth
>
> Easy, not hard to prove,
>
> I use my noodle all the time, ask my honey!
James the brother of Jesus [8] became the leader of the Jewish sect that would become known as Jewish Christianity. James "the Just", remained its leader until he was martyred c.62 AD.[9]

The Jesus/James reference of Josephus is generally considered reliable, supporting the historicity of Jesus. It is found in the Antiquities, the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[10]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety
This is consider authentic and the other reference is possibly partly authentic. Sorry, but you are wrong. Look it up

http://www.archive.org/details/HistoricalJesus

1. The Many Faces of Jesus
2. One Remarkable Life
3. Scholars Look at the Gospels
4. Fact and Fiction in the Gospels
5. The Birth of the Gospels
6. Some of the Other Gospels
7. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
8. Other Sources
9. Historical Criteria—Getting Back to Jesus
10. More Historical Criteria
11. The Early Life of Jesus
12. Jesus in His Context
13. Jesus and Roman Rule
14. Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
15. The Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus
16. Other Teachings of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
17. The Deeds of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
18. Still Other Words and Deeds of Jesus
19. How was Jesus received
20. The Last Days of Jesus
21. The Last Hours of Jesus
22. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus
23. The Afterlife of Jesus
24. The Prophet of the New Millennium

Yes, he believes Jesus was a historical person. Yes, he is a reputable scholar. I am listening to 9 and 10 right now before the rest because I am interested in the methodology.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 07:52PM by robertb.

Robert M. Price, "The Pre-Nicene New Testament". Shows and reviews dozens of books removed from the emerging Christian canon by "the winners". Also shows the actual origins of the synoptic gospels, etc., and their late origins.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert M. Price, "The Pre-Nicene New Testament".
> Shows and reviews dozens of books removed from the
> emerging Christian canon by "the winners". Also
> shows the actual origins of the synoptic gospels,
> etc., and their late origins.


Listen to the Erhman intervies referenced above. He discussed Price and his qualifications are not that impressive. He is a former fundie turned atheist who graduated from an unaccreditied Bible college if I remember correctly.Not exactly a serious scholar but typical of the Jesus/myth people