I love stories about the fictional character known as Jesus
I do wonder why so many people take such obvious farcical writings like "the bible" seriously
Who took my toast?
I do wonder why so many people take such obvious farcical writings like "the bible" seriously
Who took my toast?
Haha. Gosh, you're so ignorant. Jesus was a real person. That's an indisputable fact. The debate is whether or not he was the Savior of the world.
shareThe vast, vast majority of historians who study antiquity are in agreement that Jesus was an actual person, as many as climatologists who agree that climate change is real. A fairly good argument can be made that there is almost historical evidence to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as there is for the existence of Julius Caesar. This is settled ground, and the only "historians" who dispute it either have an axe to grind, or want to sell a lot of books based on the sensationalism associated with the stance they take against the vast majority of their colleagues (my guess is it's a little bit of both). I don't mean this in an ad hominem way but rather a statement of fact, that if you think that Jesus was not a historical person, you haven't done your homework, you haven't even begun to, or else you are a dunce taken in by a flimsy theory that you were much too over eager to accept based on your own bigotry and prejudices. I'd do a little more research next time as not to public humiliate and embarrass yourself on a topic you obviously haven't studied in any academic sense whatsoever.
sharewell no. there are contemporary inscriptions of Cesar, coins, buildings and there are books written by him, so we have a thousand times more evidences for the existence of Julius Cesar than for Jesus. He might have existed but its also possible that he is a fictional charcter or that several men, maybe even women, were merged into this one person, we call Jesus. He was mentioned for the first time 2 generations after his death, myths can be created in less time. The strange thing is: Although in Tacitus text Jesus is mentioned, Tacitus gives the wrong title for Pilate. We can be quite sure that he as a roman historian should have known the correct one. And then although Tacitus would be an important non biblical source, he is not mentioned by biblical scholars before the 15th (!) century A.D. So its possible that the passage was not to be found in the original work of Tacitus. So no, there is no proof that Jesus was real. btw. I don't doubt his existence but I know we have no proof and thats what belief is about.
shareGood post, whiteorblack.
"Can you keep a secret? Can you know something and never speak of it again?"
lol
you are comparing a king vs a carpenter
that is like comparing your existence to that of president washington
also
how many artists have actually become famous but after their death?
its a fact that popularity in SOME artists rise after their death
Sigh, some of you show you have apparently failed to fully investigate this argument for what it is saying. whiteorblack goes on a tangent regarding accusations most historians have ruled out in research. Key word here is MOST, of course this doesn't mean ALL and of course people who want Jesus to be a fictional character since that fits their worldview will gravitate to those historians who will say things they can find agreement in.
The comparison between Jesus and Caesar is often made because the oldest manuscripts, or earliest manuscripts, or primary sources removed from Julius are about 50-100 years after his death. That's right, about the same time for the gospels, other writings about Jesus not found in the Bible and the epistles. See Julius Caesar sources: http://www.livius.org/articles/person/caesar/caesar-12/. So whiteorblack is harping on the fact the earliest manuscripts removed from Jesus' death is 2 generations and he claims any earlier dates are "myths" based on his "just because I say so" position of the account while other Historians, Scholars, Biblical scholars and New Testament Scholars (of which there are some who are not Christians) will argue for dates that are anywhere between 20 - 100 years after Jesus' death.
So ultimately it is comparable with Caesar and shows the bias approach people will take in accepting one historical character based off a certain criteria while not accepting another historical character based off that same criteria just because the latter, Jesus, is a major religious figure.
The argument is presented because it emphasizes how source material is handled. In this case the source material in Christianity is, of course, the Synoptic Gospels, which regardless of their religious slant are largely considered historical documents. Of course, some internet atheist don't like to accept that despite what most historians accept.
So ultimately it is comparable with Caesar and shows the bias approach people will take in accepting one historical character based off a certain criteria while not accepting another historical character based off that same criteria just because the latter, Jesus, is a major religious figure.
Because its true.
shareWhy I Think Jesus Didn't Exist A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
"....The historicity of Christ has appeared in the public consciousness over the last few years because of such individuals such as Robert Price and Dr. Carrier. This topic deals with the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person."
Life's too short to make others shorter
Yeah, Richard Carrier and Robert Price have both been responded to by historians and Christian scholars. But, nah, let's ignore all that and just grasp at the minority of individuals who will say something that atheist can hold on to and throw out a link in an internet conversation. Let's not broaden our full exposure to the whole debate. Let's not listen to intellectuals from the other side. Let's stick our hands in our ears, cover our eyes, and all that. See nothing, hear nothing, etc. Cause we don't want to acknowledge there are scholars, historians, and intellectuals with good reasons and evidence for Christianity....
Sigh...internet atheist....
🙀
Yeah, Richard Carrier and Robert Price have both been responded to by historians and Christian scholars.
But, nah, let's ignore all that and just grasp at the minority of individuals who will say something that atheist can hold on to and throw out a link in an internet conversation. Let's not broaden our full exposure to the whole debate. Let's not listen to intellectuals from the other side. Let's stick our hands in our ears, cover our eyes, and all that. See nothing, hear nothing, etc. Cause we don't want to acknowledge there are scholars, historians, and intellectuals with good reasons and evidence for Christianity....
"Responded"? Well, that's pretty vague. What you're trying to avoid is that Christian bible scholars and apologetics have TRIED to explain away what they wrote, but their arguments don't hold any water.
Reasons? Sure. Evidence? They have none.
This post is funny. Was it supposed to be an argument?
shareAnd I wonder why in EVERY popular Jesus movie there are atheist trolls who find it necessary to post trolling topics. Probably because your life is meaningless and boring and try to get some attention that way.
shareThere were Roman (non Christian Romans) historians who made references to Jesus.
we shook our fists at the punishing rain
& WE CALLED UPON THE AUTHOR TO EXPLAIN!!!!!
In lack of evidence of his existence or non-existence, why not let people believe what they want and stay out of their business, provided they dont use their belief to cause harm to others? Why are you so eager to prove his non-existence? what are getting out of it?
share