Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (mission, famous)

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I no longer have the works of Tacitus, and Suetonius, I left them in Afghanistan, but you can find Philo and Eusebius on line.

Just because you use websites to get your information does not mean I have not done my homework by going to the actual sources.

Challenge away, but be prepared to get spanked.



I am familiar with the irrelevant concept, but because a tree falling makes a sound does not lead to the conclusion that an invented text (a second conclusion based on actual evidence) must actually be oral. That is not how logic works.

A non sequitur is a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.

We even know where much of Mark came from, rewriting the OT, where rewriting texts was a common practice among the educated of the Roman empire. And we know where the material from the other gospels came from, the OT and Mark. We have evidence for this, something we do not have, and can never have, for an oral tradition.

Just because oral story telling existed does not automatically mean Mark relied on oral tradition, and ignores the overwhelming evidence Mark is basing his allegorical fiction on the OT, just as Paul tells us that is where he found much of his information about Jesus.



Except they did know then what we know now (apart from you) that solar eclipses do not happen during a full moon, they only ever happen at a new moon. That is why they never, ever, happen at Passover, and to pretend it can IS a stretch.

What you seem to be missing is (prehistoric) ancient culture and evolution of cultures since the first tribe(s) formed, in your argument. Their world was flat --- that in itself gives to me the understanding they are not going to describe their world in the same context that we would. They didn't go get their pottery from the pottery barn (store). Every thing went dark --- what does that look like in their eyes? Just because we call it a solar eclipse, doesn't mean it was one.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I am familiar with the irrelevant concept, but because a tree falling makes a sound does not lead to the conclusion that an invented text (a second conclusion based on actual evidence) must actually be oral.

Invented text? Well I guess then (before written words) the cave drawings that told stories about, the previous cultures and societies inhabitants experiences, that the leaders (high priests) would interpret were bogus too, huh? The common man was not allowed into the 'sacred' caves, so as to draw their own conclusions about what was drawn on those walls. (common man was not sovereign) The logic? Is in understanding the evolution of humanity and humans have an origin story and within that story is how (the law) all these nations today were formed over the span of 10s of thousands of years ... In the beginning, they didn't write their words, their stories were told and spread by word-or-mouth throughout the lands, until the days of (in evolution) Latin and Armenia, do their stories appear on cuneiform ... they worshiped (first centuries B.C./A.D.) who and what they were told to worship without question to authority.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I no longer have the works of Tacitus, and Suetonius, I left them in Afghanistan, but you can find Philo and Eusebius on line.

Just because you use websites to get your information does not mean I have not done my homework by going to the actual sources.

Challenge away, but be prepared to get spanked.

Tacitus and Suetonius were high up within the Roman Empire government, that right there calls for me to take whatever they may have produced with a grain salt. I don't know about Philo and Eusebius and I'm sure not going to do a quick study of them --- cause to be frank, I do not rightly have the time for a deep dive --- but if you want to take what they wrote as a truth --- knock yourself out. See, no spanking of me required. I can only take intellectual conversations so far, before I just pull the plug and say okay --- enough already. But I'm thinking if you look into the politics of the day, you might come away with a different understanding.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

We even know where much of Mark came from, rewriting the OT, where rewriting texts was a common practice among the educated of the Roman empire. And we know where the material from the other gospels came from, the OT and Mark. We have evidence for this, something we do not have, and can never have, for an oral tradition.

Just because oral story telling existed does not automatically mean Mark relied on oral tradition ...

Says, you. They sent out to all the regions requests for what they had in written form ... it was a process that was very long and drawn out over centuries. By the time it all came about a lot of the social culture had changed, but the one constant --- If the pharaohs told them their god was the sun, so be it and they followed. Word of Christ began to change that (origin stories of humanity) while the people were/are not sovereign, questioning leaders, while risky business in doing so --- that process began.

People today get inspired (that little something inside) they want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a fireman --- or whatever that that is within them calling them to do what they do. Whatever we call that today --- in the first centuries of man, that was God. imo, people today in order to carry their argument against the Biblical stories truths, they have to give the people of ancient cultures, freedoms (more modern lives) that they didn't have.

[thrillobyte]

People have to realize that the three greatest historians of the first century--Seneca the Elder, Phil of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger never heard of Jesus and never wrote a word about him even though Jesus was supposedly going around performing all these miracles and causing earthquakes and supernatural darkness over the whole earth and causing zombies to rise from their graves and haunt the people of Jerusalem. None of this is mentioned by these historians who were right in the thick of it.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

No Michael, just me using science discoveries (theories) to make a point. But, yes the Chicxlub asteroid, is the one I was referring to --- the events of the Bible, can't be proven any better than the asteroid, even with oral traditions being a thing of ancient cultures.

Originally Posted by mordant

Except there's a giant impact crater and no one denies this.

Please read below ---

Originally Posted by Michael Way

You don't deny that there's a giant crater which was caused by the Chicxulub asteroid do you? Rocks found in the crater have been identified as carbonaceous chondrites which are a class of primitive meteorites containing high amounts of carbon.

And you do realize that in science the word 'theory' is not used in the same way it is used by the average person don't you? In science, a theory refers to a conclusion based on well tested experiments regarding some aspect of the natural world.

But yes, many events in the Bible cannot be proven, and a good case can be made against many of the biblical events. And some, such as the Genesis creation and Flood stories are absolutely disprovable thanks to science.

"In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" Yes, there is a big crater. Question is the crater the size of the earth? Now, they say, that the fallout from it blocked the sun ... that is how they get around the fact that the crater is not the size of the earth, therefore, life on the other side of the earth would remain intact. Science had to reach for the sun, on that one.

So no we have a flood (we have floods all the time in various regions of the world) that a civilization that believed the world was flat said, the whole world was underwater --- Now, I'm expected to believe one over the other as fact.

The story of Noah, happens all the time. His building a huge boat in the middle of a long drought and the people around him calling him a fool --- it's all in what people see, in another human, it still occurs with people full of doubt.

Socrates, know thyself, is also useful in those types of situations.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by hd4me

Bart Ehrman who is a well respected though controversial Bible scholar and I might add an atheist disagrees with you.

"Ehrman said he had long received occasional emails from atheists and others asking him if he thought Jesus actually lived. Then last year, he accepted an award at a meeting of the American Humanist Association in Cambridge, Mass. While there, he was dismayed to find many humanists, who describe themselves as "good without God," adhered to widely discredited notions that Jesus never lived."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-j...rman_n_1400465

"Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions." -https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465

It may be difficult for Christians to hear that Jesus is not God but there are some Scriptures in the Bible that suggest that very idea. Similarly it may be difficult for atheists to believe that Jesus actually existed but neither should be afraid of exploring the truth. It's not an earth shattering idea that Jesus actually existed. Just don't accept Wiki or You Tube or whatever tripe is on the internet as the "gospel." Examine the source that its coming from before you conclude Jesus never existed.

^ this ^

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

People have to realize that the three greatest historians of the first century--Seneca the Elder, Phil of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger never heard of Jesus and never wrote a word about him even though Jesus was supposedly going around performing all these miracles and causing earthquakes and supernatural darkness over the whole earth and causing zombies to rise from their graves and haunt the people of Jerusalem. None of this is mentioned by these historians who were right in the thick of it.

Small world? Not very spread out? Everyone lived on one Continent? And even if they had, I read a story about the water wells being dug in Yemen and within that story, their part of Yemen wasn't under war conflict and they said, if people were not talking about it, they wouldn't even know a war was going on.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by hd4me

Your response is what Ehrman is saying to atheists.

In short, the majority of scholars, whether religious or secular, accept the historicity of Jesus. This is regardless of the objections raised about the true authorship of various parts of the Bible, its historical accuracy, etc.

...

You need to explain what I bolded.

If you mean that the majority of scholars accept that Jesus was a real man, yes.
If you mean that the majority of scholars accept every tale told about Jesus in the bible, then I think you're way wrong. Way, way wrong. I think you're wrong if you think they accept the resurrection, as well.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I'll comment on this. As mensaguy pointed out, I did say further on that I probably should have used the word, "evidence" as in "...and I can present the evidence" instead of "...and I can prove it". I didn't think the word "prove" would be so contentious as even the book on synonyms sees both words as being synonymous:


proof
noun

1.evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Similar

evidence

verification

corroboration

authentication

confirmation

certification

validation

attestation

demonstration

substantiation

witness

testament

documentation


But one author isn't afraid to use the word proof:


(book cover)

It's great that person wrote a book, however, that person will never get through to the person, who has experienced (like Martin Luther) the Holy Spirit, personally. The church began loosing their power (to create laws) over people's lives when people like Martin Luther challenged them. And people like the author you brought to the argument, will never gain power over those who have a personal relationship with God.

We are at an impasse.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Please read below ---

"In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" Yes, there is a big crater. Question is the crater the size of the earth? Now, they say, that the fallout from it blocked the sun ... that is how they get around the fact that the crater is not the size of the earth, therefore, life on the other side of the earth would remain intact. Science had to reach for the sun, on that one.

A crater the size of the earth would mean NO EARTH as the entire planet would have been destroyed. . . as in vaporized by the impactor. Scientists do not claim that the Chicxulub asteroid killed all life on earth but that 3/4 of all species living at the time were destroyed.

You didn't give that one much thought.

So no we have a flood (we have floods all the time in various regions of the world) that a civilization that believed the world was flat said, the whole world was underwater --- Now, I'm expected to believe one over the other as fact.

The story of Noah, happens all the time. His building a huge boat in the middle of a long drought and the people around him calling him a fool --- it's all in what people see, in another human, it still occurs with people full of doubt.

Socrates, know thyself, is also useful in those types of situations.

The ancient Near East flood stories, including the biblical Flood are based on an actual, but regional flood, perhaps a major flooding of the Tigris- Euphrates river system that became legendized.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Small world? Not very spread out? Everyone lived on one Continent? And even if they had, I read a story about the water wells being dug in Yemen and within that story, their part of Yemen wasn't under war conflict and they said, if people were not talking about it, they wouldn't even know a war was going on.

The darkness is a complete fiction. No culture in any part of the world records a strange darkness that filled their land in the middle of the day. Certainly Philo of Alexandria who was the greatest Jewish scholar and historian of that time and was in Jerusalem when all these events were supposedly taking place would have said something about the earthquake, the darkness and especially about the zombies rising out of their graves and marching on Jerusalem. He doesn't say a word about any of it. Come on, Ellis--you can't be that naive that you can so easily explain away such a glaring omission in Philo's writings.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

"In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" Yes, there is a big crater. Question is the crater the size of the earth? Now, they say, that the fallout from it blocked the sun ... that is how they get around the fact that the crater is not the size of the earth, therefore, life on the other side of the earth would remain intact. Science had to reach for the sun, on that one.

So no we have a flood (we have floods all the time in various regions of the world) that a civilization that believed the world was flat said, the whole world was underwater --- Now, I'm expected to believe one over the other as fact.

The story of Noah, happens all the time. His building a huge boat in the middle of a long drought and the people around him calling him a fool --- it's all in what people see, in another human, it still occurs with people full of doubt.

Socrates, know thyself, is also useful in those types of situations.

Originally Posted by Michael Way

A crater the size of the earth would mean NO EARTH as the entire planet would have been destroyed. . . as in vaporized by the impactor. Scientists do not claim that the Chicxulub asteroid killed all life on earth but that 3/4 of all species living at the time were destroyed.

You didn't give that one much thought.





The ancient Near East flood stories, including the biblical Flood are based on an actual, but regional flood, perhaps a major flooding of the Tigris- Euphrates river system that became legendized.

Originally Posted by Michael Way

A crater the size of the earth would mean NO EARTH as the entire planet would have been destroyed. . . as in vaporized by the impactor. Scientists do not claim that the Chicxulub asteroid killed all life on earth but that 3/4 of all species living at the time were destroyed.

You didn't give that one much thought.

So a dinosaur (male-female) out of range couldn't survive?

Originally Posted by Michael Way

The ancient Near East flood stories, including the biblical Flood are based on an actual, but regional flood, perhaps a major flooding of the Tigris- Euphrates river system that became legendized.

I can see that ... got another one for you based on that story. God told Noah, that he wouldn't destroy much of the world by flood again (based on my memory, not looking at the Book) the next time would be by fire and nothing would be saved. (those out of range of that flood survived)

In 7th grade (70s) Mr. Lively's science class (amazing what one can remember) he said that according to Newton (law of motion) the earth was moving, every so slightly, but moving none-the-less towards the sun. If all that man was trying to do was get the class's attention --- he did manage to do that. But is it true? I can't say for sure, yes or no.

But from that, I guess you know my thoughts on, climate change, as well as a Book that was written inspired by God. (ps: there is a reason people are not to lay up their riches on the world and anger is a wasted emotion)