Posted by: lostinutah ( )
Date: February 19, 2011 07:48PMRe: What does it mean that there's no evidence that Jesus was a historical figure?

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?

Please read Michael Grant, Bart Ehrman, Michael White, John Dominic Crossan, Paula Frederickson, Amy Jill Levine, etc. I have read them and many more and I agree with them because they make sense, not because they are authority figures. I do my own thinking, thank you very much.As far as my credentials, I have a degree in Latin and one in history. Ancient history is my speciality and I also read Greek. Just saying, although neither of our degrees prove anything. BTW, most of the books you mention are religious texts written by believers. They are not historians and are not writing as such.I stand by what I said about the vast majority of scholars believing there was an historical Jesus. You can disagree with their conclsions, but that is what they think. Ehrman states that in the video referrenced in the other thread.

Just be careful to not read any actual truth.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just be careful to not read any actual truth.
Ehrman left Christianity and is an agnostic, Grant is an atheist/agnostic and Levine is a Jew.Great group of Christian apologists. You, sir, are an ignoramus. Just saying.

Your idiotic arrogance speaks for itself.

They say, essentially, "OK, this is how we arrive at our conclusions. We follow these methods. They have these strengths and these weaknesses, and you may disagree with us but you need to provide some sensible methodology of your own." I like that. It is very different from what we got from Mormonism. That kind of thinking applies to anything we want to do seriously, not just to religion. It is what makes them professionals. It is also a lot of fun--to me at least--to see it in operation and to try to grasp it myself. After all these years, learning *how* to think is still exciting for me. (Hence I listened to Ehrman's two lectures on the methodology first.)

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They say, essentially, "OK, this is how we arrive
> at our conclusions. We follow these methods. They
> have these strengths and these weaknesses, and you
> may disagree with us but you need to provide some
> sensible methodology of your own." I like that. It
> is very different from what we got from Mormonism.
> That kind of thinking applies to anything we want
> to do seriously, not just to religion. It is what
> makes them professionals. It is also a lot of
> fun--to me at least--to see it in operation and to
> try to grasp it myself. After all these years,
> learning *how* to think is still exciting for me.
> (Hence I listened to Ehrman's two lectures on the
> methodology first.)

Agreed. I don't always agree with Ehrman, but he is a scholar rather an apologist.

I've never read any of them (I don't read much about religion anymore). But I may look them up. I think Jesus was a historical person because the historian Josephus wrote about him in 37 CE. That seems credible to me because it's only 37 years from his death.

The Josephus reference is a forgery by a monk named Eusebus.

+1

roflmao Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps you should read the article too.

Trolls for jeebus care

If the god of the bible exists he is an udisputed asshole

If jeebus ever existed he never did anything newsworthy or noteworthy

Trolls for jeebus unite

You nigh to death losers of xtian apologetics

Keep it up, your arguments lose ground with every post. You cling to logical fallacy, appeal to authority, and "some scholars think this paragraph is about jeebus"

Well, when they sober up they won't think that, they'll tell you to pray about it.

Oh wait, they'll tell you to confess and then they'll take the red hot poker out of your ass.


Nowdays that sort of convincing is frowned upon, so boner duh uses the new version, which is that you will have a hot poker up your ass for eternity unless you confess jeebus is the christ.

If the mythology that no historian, scientist, astonomer, or political obsever mentions never happened, then jeebus never did anything!

Again!

Three hours of darkness, scientists, historians, Nope, zero!

Slaughter of innocents, anybody comment? Nope. Zero!

But! Wait! We have one acknowledges forgery, and one possibly not forgery! Shi, let's start a movement! Let's call skeptics stupid, or torture them until they believe.

Fuck. Being here is almost as bad as sacrament meeting.

roflmao Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trolls for jeebus care
>
> If the god of the bible exists he is an udisputed
> asshole
>
> If jeebus ever existed he never did anything
> newsworthy or noteworthy
>
> Trolls for jeebus unite
>
> You nigh to death losers of xtian apologetics
>
> Keep it up, your arguments lose ground with every
> post. You cling to logical fallacy, appeal to
> authority, and "some scholars think this paragraph
> is about jeebus"
>
> Well, when they sober up they won't think that,
> they'll tell you to pray about it.
>
> Oh wait, they'll tell you to confess and then
> they'll take the red hot poker out of your ass.
>
>
> Nowdays that sort of convincing is frowned upon,
> so boner duh uses the new version, which is that
> you will have a hot poker up your ass for eternity
> unless you confess jeebus is the christ.
>
> If the mythology that no historian, scientist,
> astonomer, or political obsever mentions never
> happened, then jeebus never did anything!
>
> Again!
>
> Three hours of darkness, scientists, historians,
> Nope, zero!
>
> Slaughter of innocents, anybody comment? Nope.
> Zero!
>
> But! Wait! We have one acknowledges forgery, and
> one possibly not forgery! Shi, let's start a
> movement! Let's call skeptics stupid, or torture
> them until they believe.
>
> Fuck. Being here is almost as bad as sacrament
> meeting.

Do you not understand that I do not believe in a a divine Jesus? I think a human being named Jesus lived. Got it yet? At least I can read and I am not a believer.

A TON OF GUYS NAMED JESUS LIVED!!!

So what?

It only matters if one of them was divine!

The original topic was "what does it mean that there was no historical Jesus"

That meant the question of a famous jewish rabbi, who did a bunch of kick ass stuff, and raised a lot of hell in judea.

Thing is, of all the non divine Jesus people who may have existed, non of them were

that guy!

You have now gone from defending the faith to defending a nobody.

See what I mean?

Last word.



This series of posts surrounds mostly Josephus


His single paragraph, may or may not have been forged.

http://thesacredmysteries.netfirms.com/do_we_find_cx_censorship_josephus_2.htm

But, it is only one paragraph, that interrupts the narrative, that isn't in Josephus style of writing, and many famous xtian apologists abandoned long ago.


Do you really want to hang your credibility on that?

In this forum?

For the record, I don't know if Jesus existed or not, he doesn't visit me

[insert your own pagan joke here]

But I have prayed my fuckin ass off, during the abuse of myself and my brothers as a child

Jesus was busy

probably fucking his thousandth wife of the day making spirit children for his planets

Now, someone wants to know if there is any empirical truth to his existence as a real person.

No.

There is not any convincing empirical proof.

Hell, the town he was born in didn't even exist

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm

Does the concept of someone making up a religion freak you out?

Did you know that the inquisition lasted for hundreds of years with people just like you trying to force skeptics to believe a lie?





You have read some books

Congratulations


Have you read

even one

that says Jesus was a Solar Deity or a Complete Myth or an update of Egyptian, Roman or other ancient gods?

Name one


If you are curious why I am still here it's because people like you have been ramming bullshit


and other things

up innocent peoples asses

too fucking long


I can defend my position very well, thank you very much.


Reason is, I am not a fucking poser.

I have paid my dues


In tears, in pain, in cash.


If you can't produce anything better than Josephus, pardon me, but fuck you.

You can keep the red hot poker

roflmao Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last word.
>
>
>
> This series of posts surrounds mostly Josephus
>
>
> His single paragraph, may or may not have been
> forged.
>
> http://thesacredmysteries.netfirms.com/do_we_find_
> cx_censorship_josephus_2.htm
>
> But, it is only one paragraph, that interrupts the
> narrative, that isn't in Josephus style of
> writing, and many famous xtian apologists
> abandoned long ago.
>
>
> Do you really want to hang your credibility on
> that?
>
> In this forum?
>
> For the record, I don't know if Jesus existed or
> not, he doesn't visit me
>
>
>
> But I have prayed my fuckin ass off, during the
> abuse of myself and my brothers as a child
>
> Jesus was busy
>
> probably fucking his thousandth wife of the day
> making spirit children for his planets
>
> Now, someone wants to know if there is any
> empirical truth to his existence as a real
> person.
>
> No.
>
> There is not any convincing empirical proof.
>
> Hell, the town he was born in didn't even exist
>
> http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth
> .htm
>
> Does the concept of someone making up a religion
> freak you out?
>
> Did you know that the inquisition lasted for
> hundreds of years with people just like you trying
> to force skeptics to believe a lie?
>
>
>
>
>
> You have read some books
>
> Congratulations
>
>
> Have you read
>
> even one
>
> that says Jesus was a Solar Deity or a Complete
> Myth or an update of Egyptian, Roman or other
> ancient gods?
>
> Name one
>
>
> If you are curious why I am still here it's
> because people like you have been ramming
> bullshit
>
>
> and other things
>
> up innocent peoples asses
>
> too fucking long
>
>
> I can defend my position very well, thank you very
> much.
>
>
> Reason is, I am not a fucking poser.
>
> I have paid my dues
>
>
> In tears, in pain, in cash.
>
>
> If you can't produce anything better than
> Josephus, pardon me, but fuck you.
>
> You can keep the red hot poker

You have no idea what I believe and you are acting like a jerk. I am so done with you. Have a nice life.

When the going gets tough, Bona Dea takes off...

She always says "I'm done with you. Good night."
But like a dog to its own vomit, she always returns.

Why do you assert it as a fact that it's a forgery? Ken Olson makes that argument that it resembles Eusebius enough that he believes he wrote it. But you are aware that its an argument, challenged by other historians who disagree, correct? You weren't present for the "forgery" right?

We're talking about the existence and weight of the evidence. My bubble isn't burst because I accept credible evidence, fair arguments, and have no articles of faith or atheism to defend.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you assert it as a fact that it's a
> forgery? Ken Olson makes that argument that it
> resembles Eusebius enough that he believes he
> wrote it. But you are aware that its an argument,
> challenged by other historians who disagree,
> correct? You weren't present for the "forgery"
> right?
>
> We're talking about the existence and weight of
> the evidence. My bubble isn't burst because I
> accept credible evidence, fair arguments, and have
> no articles of faith or atheism to defend.

Here is a link that explains the whole thing in detail. If Dave wants to educate himself, which I doubt, he can read it. Otherwise he can continue to spew out his ignorance. Let me add that Josephus mentions Jesus twice and the second passage where he mentions him in passing as the brother of James is NOT disputed.He isn't even talking about Jesus. The focus is on the death of James and Jesus is used only as a reference to clarify which James.Perhaps Dave would care to educate himself on that issue too.However, I'm not holding my breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 10:17PM by bona dea.

The "non-disputed" lie is merely another christer tactic which has been exposed but charlatans like BD cannot be expected to tell the truth about this.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "non-disputed" lie is merely another christer
> tactic which has been exposed but charlatans like
> BD cannot be expected to tell the truth about
> this.

Read the article. You might actually learn something

All you've contributed is name-calling and impugning people's motives. For what? Because they're educated? (I don't include myself as I know little about these historians other than Josephus.) They're charlatans for having an education? Because they have a point of view that disagrees with yours? Because if someone believes the evidence is that Jesus existed as a historical human person that MUST mean they have a religious agenda to exalt him to be a God?

Grow up. Read some books. Mature a bit.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you've contributed is name-calling and
> impugning people's motives. For what? Because
> they're educated? (I don't include myself as I
> know little about these historians other than
> Josephus.) They're charlatans for having an
> education? Because they have a point of view
> that disagrees with yours? Because if someone
> believes the evidence is that Jesus existed as a
> historical human person that MUST mean they have a
> religious agenda to exalt him to be a God?
>
> Grow up. Read some books. Mature a bit.

Thank you. I knew who you were referring to.Typical Dave. He never contributes anything but name calling. Anyone who believes Jesus existed is a Christian apologist-ie Christer. His ignorance on the subject is incredible.I am still waiting for him to actually contribute something of worth to the board.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you assert it as a fact that it's a
> forgery? Ken Olson makes that argument that it
> resembles Eusebius enough that he believes he
> wrote it. But you are aware that its an argument,
> challenged by other historians who disagree,
> correct? You weren't present for the "forgery"
> right?
>
> We're talking about the existence and weight of
> the evidence. My bubble isn't burst because I
> accept credible evidence, fair arguments, and have
> no articles of faith or atheism to defend.


Mountains ~

http://thesacredmysteries.netfirms.com/do_we_find_cx_censorship_josephus_2.htm

The magical mystical JuHEEsus described in the four gospels is an obvious myth.

Who f**king cares if a Horn-Dog Joe version existed?

No evidence to that effect spells it out plain and simple.

Timothy

+1.9023210

That's just 1.9023210 reasons I love Timothy

God bless ya mate!

Bona Dea, as I mentioned before, I really don't care if Jesus was real or not. I would rather read my Depositional Sandstone Structures book, I know that stuff is real.

You Xtians can read and argue about the Jesus dude all you want, it's about as real to me as the face on Mars. As an ex-Xtian I just don't care to wallow in a bunch of hyptheses about whether or not some guy existed..

Oh, and did I mention I don't care?

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bona Dea, as I mentioned before, I really don't
> care if Jesus was real or not. I would rather read
> my Depositional Sandstone Structures book, I know
> that stuff is real.
>
> You Xtians can read and argue about the Jesus dude
> all you want, it's about as real to me as the face
> on Mars. As an ex-Xtian I just don't care to
> wallow in a bunch of hyptheses about whether or
> not some guy existed..
>
> Oh, and did I mention I don't care?

Don't care. That is fine, but why are you assuming I am a Christian? I believe that a human being named Jesus lived and became the basis of the the Christian church. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I NEVER SAID HE WAS DIVINE. BTW, you cared enough to join in the conversation so I can be excused for thinking you were interested.Please feel free to disregard any further conversations on the subject since you don't care. Geez!

LOL. I can join in on any conversation I want and that does not pin me to having to read a gazillion books you recommend so I can then be "educated" on the topic. I asked for examples, not authors.

But...since I really don't care, you have a great evening and enjoy whatever you're doing while I go read about geology and eat pizza. :)

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL. I can join in on any conversation I want and
> that does not pin me to having to read a gazillion
> books you recommend so I can then be "educated" on
> the topic. I asked for examples, not authors.
>
> But...since I really don't care, you have a great
> evening and enjoy whatever you're doing while I go
> read about geology and eat pizza. :)

You asked me what scholars supported my views and I thought you were serious so I answered you. Well, excuse me for thinking you actually cared. Good night.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 11:37PM by bona dea.

I didn't ask you what scholars supported your views, I asked for FACTS.

OK, you have to have the last word, so you can have it. Wait, if I type this, that means I'm having the last word, unless you answer...which I hope you will, cause I don't really care if I have the last word.

Bona Dea, there are different levels of caring. I cared enough to comment, but I don't care enough to read a bunch of religious apologists. Thanks for the references, if I really cared they would be great. But, since I don't care, why don't you go synopsize them for me, I maybe could see it within me to care enough to read a short synopsis of each book, you know, kind of like Cliff Notes. Then we can take it from there. I might even start caring, who knows? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 11:42PM by lostinutah.

lostinutah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't ask you what scholars supported your
> views, I asked for FACTS.
>
> OK, you have to have the last word, so you can
> have it. Wait, if I type this, that means I'm
> having the last word, unless you answer...which I
> hope you will, cause I don't really care if I have
> the last word.
>
> Bona Dea, there are different levels of caring. I
> cared enough to comment, but I don't care enough
> to read a bunch of religious apologists. Thanks
> for the references, if I really cared they would
> be great. But, since I don't care, why don't you
> go synopsize them for me, I maybe could see it
> within me to care enough to read a short synopsis
> of each book, you know, kind of like Cliff Notes.
> Then we can take it from there. I might even start
> caring, who knows? :)

You don't care so I am supposed to take my time to write a synopsis of each book so that you can read it if the mood happens to strike you?. Hmmm, No, I don't think so.I'll pass. Do your own homework if you care.

As I said to another poster, it is kind of heard to be a Christian apologist if you are an atheist or a Jew as three of the authors I mentioned are, but then, we wouldn't want to let any facts get in the way. I am done with you. If you want the last word , feel free.I answered what I thought was a serious question from a closed thread.Obviously, I was wrong and I am thrugh playing your game.

Do your own homework if you care.

ROTFLMAO

I am not interested in jumping into the fray but I want to ask you a question. Sorry this kinda asks you to do my homework for me!

Earlier in the posts you mentioned Ehrman,Grant and Levine.

Are all three of these guys convinced that there was a Jesus? I recall that Ehrman does from reading his books.

Also, there is the concept that "Jesus" is actually an amalgamation or compilation of the personalities of various "messiahs" or religious preachers that existed at that time.

Skunk Puppet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not interested in jumping into the fray but I
> want to ask you a question. Sorry this kinda asks
> you to do my homework for me!
>
> Earlier in the posts you mentioned Ehrman,Grant
> and Levine.
>
> Are all three of these guys convinced that there
> was a Jesus? I recall that Ehrman does from
> reading his books.
>
> Also, there is the concept that "Jesus" is
> actually an amalgamation or compilation of the
> personalities of various "messiahs" or religious
> preachers that existed at that time.

Yes, they all believe that there was an historic Jesus and they do not believe he was divine. They don't believe he was a combination of many messiah figures but do believe that many myths grew up around him and that he took on some pagan characteristics as the legend grew.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2011 12:59AM by bona dea.