Prove that jesus is imaginary in less than 5 minutes

[Achilles]

Apparently I need to host a burden of proof workshop or something.

[Tommycat]

I’d really like Achilles to disprove something that cannot be proven. Maybe then, he could solve world hunger too.

 

No, he could show some factual evidence that those that have given evidence of a historical person going by Jesus of Nasereth have falsified their data. He's basically making the same argument as the creationists "No transitional fossils" argument. Some evidence that those making the claims of a historical Jesus falsified data. Much like how the Shroud of Turin at least a reason to doubt it's credibility.

 

Even people that do not believe in Christianity or that Jesus the Christ was the son of god have stated that he existed. Achilles has basically taken an irrational opinion and run with it. Heck he doesn't even have a "sacred text" to fall back on for his faith in the non-existance of a historical Jesus. Whereas historians, and archaeologists have found evidence of Jesus(the person, not the supernatural Jesus). There are the writings of Thallus in I think 52AD(someone might have to check that on me, Not sure, been a while). Which was before the deification of Jesus, and long before the New Testament, and also included in the Talmud as Yeshu and his five deciples.

 

Granted since there were not as many historical documents around at the time, most of it had to be passed down orally until the early second century.

 

Oh well. Guess Socrates never existed either.

 

Of course there is also evidence that Christ existed as early as the second century BC. At least if archaeological evidence is to be believed.

 

Try finding evidence of any person who was not wealthy as far back and you have trouble. Try tracing your own family history back 2000 years.

[mimartin]

Well first Achilles “the Original Poster” of the thread made it clear what type of evidence he would accept. I would believe that Achilles would accept more scientific evidence than speculation by religious scholars. So if I were to look for evidence to prove the existence of Jesus to Achilles that is where I would look and then if I found any I would expect him to disprove that evidence because that would change the burden of proof.

 

So for example, while the physical evidence Achilles requires to prove Jesus existed is lacking I may start with trying to prove certain aspects of the story of Christ were true. So where can we start, perhaps with a block of limestone found in the excavation of ancient theater in 1961. The theater was actually built in 30 BC. The block of stone is known as the Pilate Stone and bares a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate. Source 1 and Source 2

 

However does this prove the story of Christ is true? After all Pontius Pilate is a central character in the death of Christ. No, because most legends have an element of truth and we have no evidence beyond the Bible that Pontius Pilate and Jesus ever came into contact with each other.

 

The same can be stated for the Caiaphas Ossuary found in 1990. While it may prove the Jewish High Priest from the betrayal and death of Christ existed, it does nothing to prove that Jesus actually existed.

 

The burden of proof is on us, the Christian to prove Jesus existed, does exist. Without actual physical proof then I am afraid us Christian’s should avoid these threads.

[Tommycat]

Well first Achilles “the Original Poster” of the thread made it clear what type of evidence he would accept. I would believe that Achilles would accept more scientific evidence than speculation by religious scholars. So if I were to look for evidence to prove the existence of Jesus to Achilles that is where I would look and then if I found any I would expect him to disprove that evidence because that would change the burden of proof.

 

So for example, while the physical evidence Achilles requires to prove Jesus existed is lacking I may start with trying to prove certain aspects of the story of Christ were true. So where can we start, perhaps with a block of limestone found in the excavation of ancient theater in 1961. The theater was actually built in 30 BC. The block of stone is known as the Pilate Stone and bares a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate. Source 1 and Source 2

 

However does this prove the story of Christ is true? After all Pontius Pilate is a central character in the death of Christ. No, because most legends have an element of truth and we have no evidence beyond the Bible that Pontius Pilate and Jesus ever came into contact with each other.

 

The same can be stated for the Caiaphas Ossuary found in 1990. While it may prove the Jewish High Priest from the betrayal and death of Christ existed, it does nothing to prove that Jesus actually existed.

 

The burden of proof is on us, the Christian to prove Jesus existed, does exist. Without actual physical proof then I am afraid us Christian’s should avoid these threads.

 

First, I am not Christian. I am Agnostic. While I follow a lot of the Christian teachings, as a general good set of values to live by, I am not Christian in the sense that I do not believe he was the son of God. Quite frankly I am more inclined to believe the story of Jesus may have been inspired by the story of Attis and Cybelle(an allegory for the death and rebirth of love, and an interesting read). However I think there is enough evidence to show that the person may have existed, however, much as legends grow and expand to include fantastic tales, I believe the person's deeds have been exaggerated.

 

Sadly his demand for proof is the same level of proof required by creationists. Granted, as I said, finding proof of a poor man in ancient times is near impossible to come by. I would ask him who the youngest born relative of his was 2000 years ago. What proof would he have of that relative's existance.

[SkinWalker]

I used to have time for long-winded arguments like this on the intertubes.

 

Maybe Kurgan and Achilles could each post some summaries of where they're at in their arguments which could inspire others to participate & pick up from there.

 

For example: is the point of contention that there was an historical person whom the Biblical mythology of Jesus was based upon? Or is the contention that the Jesus myth was constructed a generation or more after the alleged messiah was to have lived? Or something else?

[Achilles]

My point of contention is that we should accept any claim (historical or otherwise) only to the degree which the supporting evidence allows us to do so.

 

In this case, we should accept the claim that there was a specific historical figure named Jesus only if we have evidence that shows such a figure existed. Thus far we have none. Therefore it makes no sense at all to accept such a claim.

[M@RS]

What about Josephus? He was a Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus... You think a Historian is going to lie?

[Achilles]

What about Josephus? What he write (or allegedly write) that would function as evidence for a historical jesus? When did he write it? When jesus was still alive (i.e. before Josephus was even born) or more than 50 years after jesus' alleged death (meaning that he was in no way a contemporary)?

 

Or were you hoping that simply dropping Josephus' name would be a sufficient counter-argument?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What about Josephus? What he write (or allegedly write) that would function as evidence for a historical jesus? When did he write it? When jesus was still alive (i.e. before Josephus was even born) or more than 50 years after jesus' alleged death (meaning that he was in no way a contemporary)?

 

Or were you hoping that simply dropping Josephus' name would be a sufficient counter-argument?

m@rs.

[SkinWalker]

What about Josephus? He was a Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus... You think a Historian is going to lie?

 

Flavius Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew and the passage in Antiquities of the Jews you're referring to is commonly accepted by scholars and historians as being an insertion by a later copyist and not Josephus.

 

The reasons are many, but notable among them is the fact that the passage appears written from a Christian apologist point of view and with a different literary style than the rest of Josephus' work. But Josephus was a Jew and had no motivation to write in such a manner about another Jew allegedly put to death for blasphemy.

 

In addition, no other Christian writers contemporaneous to Josephus quoted the passage even though they cited or quoted other sections. This is curious since it would benefit their cause greatly (as evidenced by the heavy reliance on the passage by much later Christians).

 

The alleged passage -the very likely insertion by Christian propagandists- is this:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

No serious scholar or historian that I've seen accepts this passage as completely genuine. I'm sure there are some, but the consensus is that this passage is not worth trusting. Moreover, I don't believe Josephus was writing at the time of the alleged Jesus, but years later.

 

Also, to your point of trusting historians not to lie (even though I assume it was tongue-in-cheek), it's worth pointing out that many ancient historians (i.e Herodotus; Plinys the Elder and the Younger; et al) were given to hyperbole and repeating tales of others as if it were first hand. We have archaeological evidence of the embellishments and misstatements of facts by these "historians" and their words are generally accepted as interesting and worthy of investigation but to be taken with liberal pinches of salt.

[EnderWiggin]

Also, to your point of trusting historians not to lie (even though I assume it was tongue-in-cheek), it's worth pointing out that many ancient historians (i.e Herodotus; Plinys the Elder and the Younger; et al) were given to hyperbole and repeating tales of others as if it were first hand. We have archaeological evidence of the embellishments and misstatements of facts by these "historians" and their words are generally accepted as interesting and worthy of investigation but to be taken with liberal pinches of salt.

 

It wasn't tongue-in-cheek... you don't know m@rs

 

_EW_

[Alexrd]

What about Josephus? He was a Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus... You think a Historian is going to lie?

 

Although I'm a Christian, I think that's not a valid argument.

[Alexrd]

My point of contention is that we should accept any claim (historical or otherwise) only to the degree which the supporting evidence allows us to do so.

 

From your point of view Achilles, this works only for Jesus or to any other known historic figure?

[Achilles]

From your point of view Achilles, this works only for Jesus or to any other known historic figure?

This works for any historic figure.

[SkinWalker]

Particularly those figures alleged to be both historic and magical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Achilles]

Particularly those figures alleged to be both historic and magical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For the most part, I consider them to be separate tests. Someone could be an actual historical figure that has claims of supernatural powers associated with them. The problem with this specific figure is that we can't even get over the first hurdle, which makes discussion of the second even more difficult to justify.

 

Sagan for the win though

[Alexrd]

So what about Shakespear, as Kurgan said. And Caesar?

[Achilles]

So what about Shakespear, as Kurgan said. And Caesar?

What about them? Also "Caesar" was also a title, not necessarily a person. Please specify which "Caesar" you are referring to.

[SkinWalker]

So what about Shakespear, as Kurgan said. And Caesar?

 

I'd have to echo Achilles and ask what, particularly, you wanted to know? I'm assuming you want to know if skeptics of the historicity of Jesus are also equally skeptical of these two. To answer that, I'd have to say no. Why should they be? As far as I'm aware, there is no claim being made that Shakespeare or any of the caesars of ancient Rome were born of virgins, walked on deep bodies of water, turned water to wine, healed the blind, cast "demons" from men into pigs, etc. Nor is anyone suggesting that any salvation or "eternal life" depends upon the blind and willing belief in either a caesar or Shakespeare.

 

Therefore, there are less claims that need to be supported. The claim that centers around Shakespeare is that he authored respected works of fiction and poetry. That a body of work exists written in a literary style consistent with a single person of the 16th-17th century is incontestable. It wouldn't significantly diminish the body of work to discover that the person's name wasn't "Shakespeare."

 

Nor would it diminish the reach and influence of Roman empire as apparent in the archaeological record if a particular caesar (perhaps the alleged Bard's own Julius Caesar) was found not to have been a genuinely historical figure.

 

The historicity of Jesus really isn't about whether or not a person existed named Jesus. Its about whether or not a magical person existed and whether or not the superstitions surrounding the myth of this person are factual. Did he walk on water? Was he born of a virgin? Did he cast demons from men into pigs? Did he wave a hand, speak a magical incantation and turn water into wine?

 

The biblical figure of Jesus is the sum of these mythical beliefs and superstitions. There may truly have been a genuine human, with all the fallibilities that humans have, but who was charismatic and perhaps even a cult of personality -that person may have even been named Jesus. But the modern concept of Jesus is a human mythical construct and that Jesus has no evidence nor is there any good reason to accept as having existed.

 

Does that help?

[asgor]

ooh i like this kind of discussions

there is no proof of a god nor jezus, though it is very likely that there was a man called jezus, there is no single bit of proof that he was actually the son of god, it could have been a psycho escaped from a asylum (i bet the romans already had those) and a bunch of lunatics followed him now... this is just what i believe, i do respect other people's faith... but i do have a opinion.

now, i know i can hurt some souls with this...(when i told 1 of my classmates he cried) but i personally think christianity (and especiallt catholic) faith were only used to have a certain kind of power that would even get the people rise against their king.

now... though there is no single proof... what if there was a god? or a jezus?

god would be (sorry for my use of words) a gigantic jackass... making mankind suffer for ages just because some dumb women eat an freaking apple? and if he would exist... he would be the creator of about everything... like hate, which got us to have wars, this all sounds very unlikely.

 

now... those were my 2 cents, believe what you want, but i stay atheïst

[Alexrd]

What about them? Also "Caesar" was also a title, not necessarily a person. Please specify which "Caesar" you are referring to.

 

Right, my mistake. Julius Caesar and William Shakespear.

 

I'd have to echo Achilles and ask what, particularly, you wanted to know? I'm assuming you want to know if skeptics of the historicity of Jesus are also equally skeptical of these two. To answer that, I'd have to say no. Why should they be? As far as I'm aware, there is no claim being made that Shakespeare or any of the caesars of ancient Rome were born of virgins, walked on deep bodies of water, turned water to wine, healed the blind, cast "demons" from men into pigs, etc. Nor is anyone suggesting that any salvation or "eternal life" depends upon the blind and willing belief in either a caesar or Shakespeare.

 

Therefore, there are less claims that need to be supported. The claim that centers around Shakespeare is that he authored respected works of fiction and poetry. That a body of work exists written in a literary style consistent with a single person of the 16th-17th century is incontestable. It wouldn't significantly diminish the body of work to discover that the person's name wasn't "Shakespeare."

 

Nor would it diminish the reach and influence of Roman empire as apparent in the archaeological record if a particular caesar (perhaps the alleged Bard's own Julius Caesar) was found not to have been a genuinely historical figure.

 

The historicity of Jesus really isn't about whether or not a person existed named Jesus. Its about whether or not a magical person existed and whether or not the superstitions surrounding the myth of this person are factual. Did he walk on water? Was he born of a virgin? Did he cast demons from men into pigs? Did he wave a hand, speak a magical incantation and turn water into wine?

 

The biblical figure of Jesus is the sum of these mythical beliefs and superstitions. There may truly have been a genuine human, with all the fallibilities that humans have, but who was charismatic and perhaps even a cult of personality -that person may have even been named Jesus. But the modern concept of Jesus is a human mythical construct and that Jesus has no evidence nor is there any good reason to accept as having existed.

 

Does that help?

 

No, it doesn't. It has become clear that what we are discussing here is if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, not if He had made all those miracles. And, as you said:

 

There may truly have been a genuine human, with all the fallibilities that humans have, but who was charismatic and perhaps even a cult of personality -that person may have even been named Jesus.

 

And Achilles thinks Jesus (person) never existed, because there is no proof that can support it.

 

As for what you've said about Shakespear, it could be a group of people, not a single person. We don't know from that point of view.

 

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need. And the target is always Christianity, never other religions very similar in teatchings. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to escape from the thread.)

[Ray Jones]

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need.

Well, not to derail this thread, but I think that might not be the case for all Christian flavours or believers. Some try to teach that there is an superior Aryan race, or that gay people are bad persons, some are assassins, and some are even terrorists. So I think it's a good idea not to go down that route any further.

 

However, I doubt Earth saw a real person ever dividing water etc. What I don't doubt is, that there were one or more persons that directly or indirectly inspired the creation of a character commonly known as Jesus. It has even been theorised that both, Buddha and Jesus, share the same "ancestor" or that the character of Jesus was inspired by Buddha. Some say they were brothers IRL.

[Alexrd]

Well, not to derail this thread, but I think that might not be the case for all Christian flavours or believers. Some try to teach that there is an superior Aryan race, or that gay people are bad persons, some are assassins, and some are even terrorists. So I think it's a good idea not to go down that route any further.

 

But those are not Christian teachings, so it's irrelevant what those "supposed" Christian teach or say...

[Ray Jones]

Sorry, but you weren't talking about Christian teachings. You said "if Christians were assassins and terrorists", and frankly, there are countless Christian murderers, assassins and terrorist out there.

[Alexrd]

Sorry, but you weren't talking about Christian teachings. You said "if Christians were assassins and terrorists", and frankly, there are countless Christian murderers, assassins and terrorist out there.

 

They call themselves Christians, but they are not.