things that interest you that others dont care about probably thread

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

i'm not asking in regards to jesus.

how do you feel about muhammad? do you see him as an actual historical figure? do you lend credence to his followers writings of him? can you take what was written about him as historical fact?

Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was a head of state, and quite a formidable one. Don't think of the historical Mohammed as someone like the historical Jesus - think of him as more akin to Justinian I, of the Byzantine Empire. Justinian's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox church, with (one assumes) various miracles and other religious properties attributed to him. One can believe in Saint Justinian or not - but Emperor Justinian I was very, very real, and came very close to re-integrating the Western Roman Empire with Byzantium.

So, too, with Mohammed. Was he a prophet? I don't believe so - as an atheist, I don't believe *anyone* was a prophet. But was he a real, historical person who cut quite a swathe through the Middle East in the 600s? Well, *someone* certainly did a whole bunch of conquering at that time, and the contemporary sources attribute it pretty unanimously to a fellow named Mohammed. (As I understand it). So, the simplest explanation is that the fellow existed.

[Destroyer]

V, I think we’re going to have to be content to agree on Pink Floyd
And I’m good with that

[sral]

The mainstream scholarly consensus is still near universal that Jesus was a real person, even if the supernatural claims about him are not accepted as historical.

The data points most relied on to support historicity are:

Paul's writings, in particular Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord," which implies that Jesus had a physical brother who Paul knew personally.

Two mentions (albeit one of them at least partially interpolated) by Josephus.

A mention by Tacitus that the founder of the Christians was one named "Christus" who was put to death by Pilate (quite similar to what Joesphus says).


That's pretty much it for hard evidence. There really isn't any smoking gun, but scholarly consensus is that historicity is at least more likely than not.

[Amen]

Lol Jesus have mercy.

[Inno]

Biceratop get this rep

[sral]

Originally Posted by Innovator

Biceratop get this rep

@Ghost1

[sral]

I am certainly not an expert, but will intervene anyway since some posts may be following a wrong path.

The Jews of 30 AD certainly knew whether Jesus existed or not. The Gospels make it clear he was a renowned healer. The Jews of 55 AD certainly had a pretty good idea whether he existed or not ... unless they thought all their parents' generation had been brainwashed.

In other words, if Jesus was a fabrication, many Jews of the late 1st century would have known he was a fabrication. The Jewish Talmud has passages intended to denigrate Jesus. But it lacks the obvious strong charge it might have made: that he didn't even exist! Josephus' history has been tampered with but scholars agree, I think, that some of its references to Jesus are in the original; given his dates and experience Josephus knew whether or not Jesus existed.

[sral]

@uh oh

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[56] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[56] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[73] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[74][75][76] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[74][76][77]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[78] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[79][80][81]

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[12][82]

Jesus was a Galilean Jew.
His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
He was baptized by John the Baptist.
He called disciples.
He had a controversy at the Temple.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[12][82]
After his death his disciples continued.
Some of his disciples were persecuted.[12][82]
Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal.[12][82][83]

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[84][85][86][87] Other references to Jesus and his execution exist in the Talmud, but they aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[84][88]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[uh-oh]

the talmud was written 300 years after the proliferation of the jesus myth

the majority of scholars who study christianity are christian. there is no consensus among historians, because the majority of historians are more concerned with events of importance. the rise of christianity was of importance, the life of a man named jesus wasn't.

also jews claiming to be the messiah was almost as common as jews being named jesus/yeshua and james and joseph

there isn't the evidence. it may be enough for you to conclude he existed. i don't see it.

he was an allegorical figure used to spearhead a system of beliefs

[WRATH]

Why are you trying to disprove jesus he was real. The other stuff is glorification to drive their point home, sell more books. It's why the central theme is sacrifice he died that day it's the resurrection that, I believe, was staged.

[uh-oh]

im not trying to disprove jesus was real. if he was real the burden of proof is on those who believe he is real. those who believe he is real continue to point to the same sources and claiming that that is proof. it is not. it's not enough for me. they are pretending that writings from the era are scarce and non existent. they are not.

hell philo of alexandria was a jewish scholar who wrote at length about pontius pilates rule over judea in 40 AD. this is 4 years after pontius pilate left office. how many mentions of jesus? zero.

the more i look into it the more evidence i find disproving his existence. sorry. you can believe what you will.

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

im not trying to disprove jesus was real. if he was real the burden of proof is on those who believe he is real. those who believe he is real continue to point to the same sources and claiming that that is proof. it is not. it's not enough for me. they are pretending that writings from the era are scarce and non existent. they are not.

hell philo of alexandria was a jewish scholar who wrote at length about pontius pilates rule over judea in 40 AD. this is 4 years after pontius pilate left office. how many mentions of jesus? zero.

There were accounts of Pilate, of course, not least the accounts in the Gospels.

But the records of his administration had disappeared completely: no papyri, no rolls, no tablets, no (authentic) letters to Rome. The Roman ruins that remained in Israel seemed to have nothing to do with him. Even his aqueduct - a project that got him into plenty of trouble at the time - appeared to have crumbled away.

Why isn't there more evidence, @uh-oh?

If you can't provide proof he existed, I can only assume - by your own logic in this thread - that he, like historic Jesus in your opinion, didn't exist.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

There were accounts of Pilate, of course, not least the accounts in the Gospels.

But the records of his administration had disappeared completely: no papyri, no rolls, no tablets, no (authentic) letters to Rome. The Roman ruins that remained in Israel seemed to have nothing to do with him. Even his aqueduct - a project that got him into plenty of trouble at the time - appeared to have crumbled away.

Why isn't there more evidence, @uh-oh?

If you can't provide proof he existed, I can only assume - by your own logic in this thread - that he, like historic Jesus in your opinion, didn't exist.

It would be fair to say that i've seen enough evidence of the existence of a man named pontius pilate who was prefect of judea between 26-36 AD, for me to logically think he existed.

I haven't seen enough to say the same for jesus of nazareth.

I have no vested interest in proving or disproving his existence. Im not a christian or an atheist. I dont have an agenda, simply an opinion. I dont think he existed. I think the idea of him is an amalgamation of jewish figures of the time sprinkled with middle eastern mysticism and grecoroman mystery religions. It sprang about during a time when peoples gods were failing them and they were being trampled under the military might of one of the greatest forces this world has ever known. But again its just my goofy opinion.

[sral]

Is there clear historical evidence that Jesus existed? No. But that's not unusual.

Is not the Pontius Pilate Stone the only evidence that Pilate existed outside the Gospels (and works likely to be derived from them)?

That said, Jesus wasn't considered any where near as important in his time.

The little surviving first-century literature was mostly written by members of the small, literate Roman elite. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser, perhaps a magician, in a very small, backward part of the world. Jesus’ trial was not news in Rome. If there ever were archives there, they have not survived. If records were kept in Jerusalem, they were lost in the wars of 66-70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army.

An event that needs to be considered when evaluating the accuracy of the gospels is the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD. That revolt was completely crushed by the Roman Army. The Holy Lands were devastated. Written records about the life and ministry of Jesus were destroyed. Eye witnesses to that life and ministry were killed or dispersed. Anything written before the revolt is bound to be more accurate than anything written afterwards.

The epistles of St. Paul, which make up about half of the New Testament, were written before the uprising. Unfortunately, they tell very little about the life of Jesus.

I cannot read the Kione Greek in which the New Testament was written. Nevertheless, I have read the Bible from cover to cover eight times in seven translations. I have read many books about the Bible. Some were written from a Fundamentalist standpoint. Some were written using the higher criticism.

My impression from reading Acts is that it was written when St. Paul was still alive. There is no obvious indication that he is going to be martyred. It ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader has been told several times that he has not violated Roman or Jewish laws. Members of the Jewish community visit him. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, the conversations seem to be civil.

According to Eusebius, who lived from AD 263 – 339, St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred in Rome before the Jewish Uprising began. Archaeological excavations beneath St. Peter's Basilica indicate that at one time St. Paul and St. Peter were buried there.

Where I disagree with the consensus is in dating Mark, Luke, and Acts. According to the consensus Mark was written about 70 AD. Luke and Acts were written ten or more years later. I do not see why Luke would have waited so long to write an account of events that would have been fresher in his memory much earlier.

If Acts was written before 66 AD, Luke was written earlier, and Mark was written earlier still. They would have been written when eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus were available. These would have been consulted.

[Ghost1]

Who knew Lars was such an informed Christian lol nc never disappoints. Reps on deck.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by sraL

Is there clear historical evidence that Jesus existed? No.

stopped here. Thanks

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

Is there clear historical evidence that Jesus existed? No. But that's not unusual.

Is not the Pontius Pilate Stone the only evidence that Pilate existed outside the Gospels (and works likely to be derived from them)?

An event that needs to be considered when evaluating the accuracy of the gospels is the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD. That revolt was completely crushed by the Roman Army. The Holy Lands were devastated. Written records about the life and ministry of Jesus were destroyed. Eye witnesses to that life and ministry were killed or dispersed. Anything written before the revolt is bound to be more accurate than anything written afterwards.

philo of alexandria. a jewish philosopher/historian in egypt. (alexandria lol) wrote of pontius pilates rule as a prefect of judea, how he was a pompous fucko typical roman lording over the people harshly stamping out uprisings. he wrote in depth about him, with absolutely 0 mention of jesus. NONE. pontius was also mentioned in both the sources you use for jesus, josephus/tacitus, as well as the gospels, but i don't put ANY credence in the gospels. plus the pilate stone that was found.

the jewish uprising had nothing to do with christians. later historians mention them fleeing before the war, to pella (greece) oddly enough, but by that time there were already christians being persecuted in rome itself.

the problem with all this is you guys are putting historical credence into the gospels where as i basically throw them out. anything that was used to convert people to a religion isn't history to me, its pure nonsense propaganda. im sure there is truth within the gospels, because you need to put actual people and places in them to convince those around you of the magical nature of what you follow, thats the thing as well what is the written gospels im sure was what was being preached by the early disciples in there quest for converts, so they could well predate any of these dates, and be from the time when historical jesus would have existed

that doesn't make the historical jesus real.

[Destroyer]

Keeping it real though, if he did exist in history, I think this explains why it may be more likely that he did exist in some way

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

[Ghost1]

Meh William lane Craig cooked that fagot

[Destroyer]

Lol. Not sure which YouTube you have access to
Nobody ever cooked hitchens