Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go on and call me a joke. I figure you can share your laughs with thrillobyte.
You posted something mysteriously cryptic and got a reaction, even though it was likely not the one you wanted. Do you want to explain in plain English how what you said relates to the topic? You obviously wrote what you did hoping to get attention for it.
I choose to ignore your childish snark about calling you a joke or "sharing laughs with thrillobyte. WTH is that all about anyway.
Now wait a second. I'd like a chance to defend my position. MQ, you haven't said whether you are referring to the historical man who might have been called Jesus who was just an ordinary man OR the Jesus, son of God found in the gospels. They are two separate individuals, one based on the other. This is an accepted fact by nearly all secular historians.
You have to realize this is not a criminal case where guilt has to be established beyond a shadow of doubt. In that case, I'd still disagree with you but you would have a stronger claim.
This is a civil case where guilt or innocence is based on a preponderance of the evidence. The Christians have presented one skimpy piece of evidence to prove Jesus was real: Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) in which Josephus is reputed to have said, "James, brother of Jesus who is called Christ". We know now that Josephus never said "who is called Christ." That was added by Eusebius 200+ years later. So the Christians using historical evidence have absolutely nothing to point to to prove the gospels' "Jesus' savior of the world" existence. It has always been assumed by antiquity that Jesus was real, and maybe an ordinary man or men was real, though we can't even prove that historically.
But I have shown with a mountain of evidence over the course of this thread that a divine Jesus, son of God as portrayed in the gospels never lived because not a single historian, including ones who were in Jerusalem at the very time Jesus' trial went on and including incidences such as bodies rising from the dead and going into Jerusalem, and a great earthquake and supernatural darkness, and then after he rose and ascended before 500 people according to the Bible--not a single historian in the Jerusalem area wrote a single word about him or the events portrayed in the gospels. That'd be an open and shut case right there, but I went on to show that nearly every important marker in the gospels have been derived from earlier pagan mythical gods. Jesus' entire nativity story can be found in other mythological gods. Are the Christians going to assert that the entire episode of Jesus nativity looking like Krishna's, Heracle's, Horus', Moses' and a bunch others IS JUST A COINCIDENCE?
Look at this staggering fact :
Here are names of Gods throughout history that were said to have been born by a virgin on 25th December.
HORUS
An Ethiopian-Sudanese God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 3,000 YEARS before Jesus.
BUDDHA
A Nepal God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 563 YEARS before Jesus.
KRISHNA
An Indian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 900 YEARS before Jesus.
ZARATHUSTRA
An Iranian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1,000 YEARS before Jesus.
HERCULES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 800 YEARS before Jesus.
MITHRA
A Persian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin- 600 YEARS before Jesus.
DIONYSUS
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 500 YEARS before Jesus.
THAMMUZ
A Babylonian God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 400 YEARS before Jesus.
HERMES
A Greek God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.
ADONIS
A Phoenician God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 200 YEARS before Jesus.
JESUS CHRIST
A Roman God, born 25th December, by a Virgin around 1-30 AD.
Source: world history.
Top books on this topic could be found below. Right click on the links to make sure you have the exact book.
With all due respect, MQ do you really believe the preponderance of evidence doesn't show that the Jesus son of God god-man of the gospels was a myth? Remember: "preponderance of evidence".
In most civil cases, the jury must apply the “preponderance of the evidence†standard of proof. This means that, to win, the plaintiff's lawyer must prove to the jury that the plaintiff's side of the story is more likely than not. It does not mean that one side brought in more evidence than the other side.
But this is not a civil case and you are not a lawyer (I don't think, anyway.) The fact that the Jesus story parallels other mythological is still not proof, because you would also have to prove that your long list of other mythological beings didn't exist either.
Maybe not a coincidence. Maybe this is just how it all works. You can't prove it doesn't.
Sorry if I'm not giving it the thought you were looking for, but naturally I've seen all this before, going way back on the old AOL message boards, and probably to some degree here, too. It just doesn't impress me, I don't really care one way or another, and I'm not even sure most of it is accurate anyway. Things make the rounds on the Interwebz for a couple of decades, and all of a sudden they are considered Holy Writ, so to speak.
Thank you for that, Derek. Finally! Something from the Christians with a little...uh...BODY to it. (little resurrection humor there )
Let's see...
1. Empty tomb
Well, there isn't one empty tomb, there's actually three of them.
a.the Talpiot Family Tomb
b. the Garden Tomb--also known as Gordon’s Tomb (did Jesus have an alias?)
c. the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
So the question is, which one will we find Jesus' body behind--Door No. 1, Door No. 2 or Door No 3?
In sum, nobody knows where this empty tomb is today. It's just another unsubstantiated legend from the Bible.
Derek, the first problem with your link is, take away the Bible which has never been accepted by secular Biblical scholars/historians as a factual document, just myths, legends and tales inserted into a historical setting, and you have absolutely nothing to prove your case for Christ. But let's proceed:
2. Historically Credible Accounts in the Gospels
Here's what scholars have to say about the gospels being historically credible accounts:
The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD. The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.
I have no idea how this is evidence for Jesus. The paragraph talks about the disciples believing Jesus rose and the post-resurrection appearances. Again I ask: WHAT POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES????? Is there a single person outside the New Testament who can vouch they saw Jesus?
4. The Apparent Death Hypothesis
Again, I have no idea how an apparent death is proof of the existence of Jesus. It talks about how ridiculous it is to say Jesus got up and moved a large stone. The paragraph talks as if it's settled fact Jesus rose. Christians can't even prove he was real.
5. The Wrong Tomb Hypothesis
Pretty much explains itself, but again we don't have a tomb, much less an empty tomb.
6. The Displaced Body Hypothesis
How this is historic proof of Jesus I have no idea.
7. The Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus
Again, if we cannot even show historic evidence the apostles even existed or mention a single historian who even mentions them then how are we going to make credible some New Testament myths of mythical people claiming to have seen a mythical man-god.
8. The Existence of Christianity
You explain the existence of Christianity the exact same way you explain the existence of Hinduism and Buddhism which have been around far FAR longer than Christianity. Both religions still have followers which number into one billion and 400 million followers respectively nearly 4000 years later.
Derek, if this is the best you can do to prove Jesus is not a myth but a real person, once again I say, "Take away the Bible and what sort of proof remains?"
Never have I met Jesus face to face...but I know people that have!! Figment of their imagination? Not from what I could tell! One's a nun...she did not make that up!
That was not meant to be proof...it just satisfies me..who does not have a scientific left brain propensity.
*This making so many spaces as a 'style of posting' makes me nuts with all the scrolling, thrill!
I know, I know, it's my problem. But I'm finally tellin' ya.
Underwhelming, almost all based on later, gospel fiction (all rewrites of Mark), invented people, and false arguments such as women being unreliable witnesses.
As for Paul, he says the appearances to the other apostles were like his. Even the Pentecostal appearance in Acts is not a physical appearance of Jesus.
I think Rome generally just incorporated the gods of each conquered land into their pantheon either directly or by saying "yeah we believe in your god Oog, we just call him Jupiter" or whatever.
What gave Rome indigestion concerning the Jews is that they were not willing to be assimilated either religiously or culturally and kept fomenting rebellions. They were not Team Players. Christianity, being as it was initially a sect or derivative of Judaism, would have probably fallen under the same shadow.
That depends on what time you are talking about. The Romans in the beginning gave the Jews a lot of religious freedom because of the help Herod the Great gave to them. These powers were slowly lost, especially after two Jewish revolts.
The persecution of the Christians for their beliefs did not take place until later. The first instance we have of Christians being punished is Suetonius telling us they were punished for unknown reasons, along with others who abused public order.
Pliny the Younger attacked them because he thought they were doing wrong, even though he did not know what they believed, so he could not have been persecuting them for their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I do agree though that being a Christian was not inherently risky, just for somewhat different reasons. Rome was concerned about law and order and fealty. If I pay my taxes and keep my head down, the fact I'm a Christian by itself wouldn't matter. Rome didn't really care directly what notions were banging around in between my ears, so long as they didn't involve insurrection or subversion or tax evasion or the like. I'm not aware of any evidence that Romans were demanding people worship Roman deities / foreswear Jesus or face terrible consequences.
Again, that depends on what time you are talking about. Many of the persecutions were exaggerated, but later the Christians were ordered to take part in pagan rituals. When they refused, some parts of the Roman empire persecuted them, others were more tolerant.
But this is not a civil case and you are not a lawyer (I don't think, anyway.) The fact that the Jesus story parallels other mythological is still not proof, because you would also have to prove that your long list of other mythological beings didn't exist either.
Maybe not a coincidence. Maybe this is just how it all works. You can't prove it doesn't.
Sorry if I'm not giving it the thought you were looking for, but naturally I've seen all this before, going way back on the old AOL message boards, and probably to some degree here, too. It just doesn't impress me, I don't really care one way or another, and I'm not even sure most of it is accurate anyway. Things make the rounds on the Interwebz for a couple of decades, and all of a sudden they are considered Holy Writ, so to speak.
Well, you know, MQ philosophers argue that this life is just an illusion so in the strictest sense nothing is really provable or unprovable--a person's love, the sun coming up tomorrow, even George Washington's existence--none of it is "provable".
But far be it from me to argue with a mod--especially one as charming and intelligent as yourself, and so I will politely concede the point.
I'll just add this in postscript:
There is a book by an attorney named David Limbaugh (yes, brother of the late Rush) who wrote a book, "Jesus on Trial: A lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel". I always go to the 1-star reviews first when getting a sense of these kinds of books (like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ") and sure enough--99.99% of this attorney's "proof" is from the Bible. Which pretty much proves my point: take away the Bible and there isn't a single factual thing a Christian can dig up to support the existence of Jesus Christ. All they have is what EscalaMike says, "The existence of Christianity today today is proof of Jesus". Well, that's proof in the same way the existence of a much older religion, Hinduism (which has been around 200 years longer than Christianity) is proof of the Hindu god, Vishnu. Would you agree?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-27-2022 at 09:15 AM..
Reason: added material
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't prove it doesn't.
