The historical Jesus

[JLAEST]

@ Farnhamia and Enadail
I don't know where you found the tax thing, I couldn't find it. I only found the idea of refusing to offer sacrifices for the gods or the emperor.

About the number, I couldn't find final numbers, but I found this.

Nobody really knows exactly how many Christians died in the Diocletian
persecution from 303 to 311. Based on available evidence, Gibbon
estimated the total number of Christians martyred during that nine
years of persecution as no more than two thousand.

Only in that period.

[Treznor]

If one is a Christian the historical proof is largely irrelevant. Faith comes out of a personal relationship with God (or delusion if you prefer) and historical evidence will neither help nor hinder that faith. If one isn't Christian, all the historical evidence in the world will at most confirm the existence of a man and do nothing to convince you of his deity (nor should it).
Whether one finds the historical references that exist persuasive depends entirely on very subjective criteria. Though If one wishes to entirely disbelieve them, consistency would seem to demand that one also disbelieves a large quantity of consensus view ancient history.

As someone who is not religious, but is constantly pressured by the religious to believe their superstitious claims, I look for something to verify the validity of those claims. That's the purpose of this debate.

Otherwise, we're back to the dragon in my garage.

You and your bloody dragon, Trez! The neighbors are starting to talk about all that smoke, you know.

But first they have to prove it's there.

[Enadail]

You and your bloody dragon, Trez! The neighbors are starting to talk about all that smoke, you know.

But first they have to prove it's there.

The smokes not from dragon breath... and his neighbors always wonder why the local store is always out of chips...

[Farnhamia]

@ Farnhamia and Enadail
I don't know where you found the tax thing, I couldn't find it. I only found the idea of refusing to offer sacrifices for the gods or the emperor.

About the number, I couldn't find final numbers, but I found this.

Nobody really knows exactly how many Christians died in the Diocletian
persecution from 303 to 311. Based on available evidence, Gibbon
estimated the total number of Christians martyred during that nine
years of persecution as no more than two thousand.

Only in that period.

I made it up. That's not the point. The point is, the persecutions, even throwing in the Diocletian one to double the count, weren't a wholesale slaughter of Christians, nor were Christians running around the countryside being chased by Roman soldiers.

The operative words in your quote are "Nobody really knows." Even when an emperor declared a persecution, the impact could be very variable. They were far less popular and effective in the Western Empire, I believe, than in the East. If the governor didn't much feel like pressing the point, he could very often get away with it.

Frankly, I've often thought that Christianity was purer when it was being persecuted. After it took over the Empire, or was taken over by the Empire, the Church got too fat and complacent.

[Sitspot]

As someone who is not religious, but is constantly pressured by the religious to believe their superstitious claims, I look for something to verify the validity of those claims. That's the purpose of this debate.

One of my points was that this debate does nothing to verify the validity of the claims that your superstitious friends press upon you. Even if they could prove conclusively that Jesus Christ the historical person existed, It would in no way prove that his Deity was more than the"superstitious claim" that you presently presume it to be. So if you really are looking for what you claim out of this debate, I fear that you are destined to be disappointed.

[Treznor]

As someone who is not religious, but is constantly pressured by the religious to believe their superstitious claims, I look for something to verify the validity of those claims. That's the purpose of this debate.

One of my points was that this debate does nothing to verify the validity of the claims that your superstitious friends press upon you. Even if they could prove conclusively that Jesus Christ the historical person existed, It would in no way prove that his Deity was more than the"superstitious claim" that you presently presume it to be. So if you really are looking for what you claim out of this debate, I fear that you are destined to be disappointed.

Exactly, which reinforces my suspicion that the claims are purely superstitious, and not grounded in anything resembling reality.

What's the difference between a god who has no discernable impact on the universe, and no god at all?

[JLAEST]

@ Farnhamia and Enadail
I don't know where you found the tax thing, I couldn't find it. I only found the idea of refusing to offer sacrifices for the gods or the emperor.

About the number, I couldn't find final numbers, but I found this.

Nobody really knows exactly how many Christians died in the Diocletian
persecution from 303 to 311. Based on available evidence, Gibbon
estimated the total number of Christians martyred during that nine
years of persecution as no more than two thousand.

Only in that period.

I made it up. That's not the point. The point is, the persecutions, even throwing in the Diocletian one to double the count, weren't a wholesale slaughter of Christians, nor were Christians running around the countryside being chased by Roman soldiers.

The operative words in your quote are "Nobody really knows." Even when an emperor declared a persecution, the impact could be very variable. They were far less popular and effective in the Western Empire, I believe, than in the East. If the governor didn't much feel like pressing the point, he could very often get away with it.

Frankly, I've often thought that Christianity was purer when it was being persecuted. After it took over the Empire, or was taken over by the Empire, the Church got too fat and complacent.

Yes, I agree with you there, it wasn't the kind of presecution most people think of.

About the last sentence, you are not only the only one. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, but even I have some questions about positions and actions by the Church nowadays.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

Maybe Jesus, she, was the Jehanne d'Arc of her time. Who knows? There's no evidence.

[Treznor]

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

Maybe Jesus, she, was the Jehanne d'Arc of her time. Who knows? There's no evidence.

Based on my education, the locals of that time would not tolerate a woman in authority. There's no precedent for it in their entire history. The Romans might not have cared one way or another, but the Hebrews of that time? Not a chance. They were still prone to stoning children for talking back to elders.

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe Jesus, she, was the Jehanne d'Arc of her time. Who knows? There's no evidence.

Jesus was a French Crusader/Commander?

[Sitspot]

Exactly, which reinforces my suspicion that the claims are purely superstitious, and not grounded in anything resembling reality.

It really depends what you mean by reality. Something within ones personal perception can be very real yet non provable to anyone else. Certain types of pain for example; you know that you hurt, yet all a listener can do is believe or disbelieve you. You may hear a beautiful birdsong, but there is no way to prove to anyone else that you heard it when you said you did. etc etc.
I happen to believe in Christ because I have a relationship with him and have felt his affects on me. I have absolutely no way of proving that, but to me it is just as real as the pain or the birdsong. I completely accept that I have no rational way of proving it to anyone else and it would rather defeat the purpose of the thing if I could. Everyone should have their own spiritual journey, you can't take one second hand from someone else.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

Maybe Jesus, she, was the Jehanne d'Arc of her time. Who knows? There's no evidence.

Based on my education, the locals of that time would not tolerate a woman in authority. There's no precedent for it in their entire history. The Romans might not have cared one way or another, but the Hebrews of that time? Not a chance. They were still prone to stoning children for talking back to elders.

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

[Yenke-Bin]

Links:


Did Jesus exist:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Index.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html

Was Jesus copied from pagan myths:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidenc ... -about-him
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidenc ... nity-false

Resurrection, which is essential to the proof of Christ:
http://www.tektonics.org/rezhub.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/ ... ence7.html
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... idence.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /yama.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hallucn.html
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidenc ... nd-corrupt
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidenc ... -rise-dead

Why Christianity is impossible...unless its true:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html


I'm trying to find this video I recently watched. It was a guy by the name of Mark Moore, a Christian Scholar that gives a 45 minute lecture on the logic and historicity of the resurrection of Christ. If i wasn't a believer, it would be hard to deny what the man says.

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was an Egyptian.

[Skirrata]

Get your facts straight Skirrata, Socrates didn't write anything, and there's no solid proof that the people who wrote the Gospels ever met a man called Jesus. They could all be writing variations of a pre-existent mythical narrative, adding their own elements.

whoops, not socrates, the other guy, having a blond moment.

And the gospels are written by people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' last years of life.

[Yenke-Bin]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was an Egyptian.

Uh...she was greek, of the Ptolemic Dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt

[Buffett and Colbert]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Maybe you missed in your education that Cleopatra was Egyptian.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was an Egyptian.

Uh...she was greek, of the Ptolemic Dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt

You could say both I suppose. She was Greek since the place belonged to the Greek Empire at the time but she was also Egyptian because the actual land was called Egypt.

[Conserative Morality]

Uh...she was greek, of the Ptolemic Dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt

She ruled Egypt, in Egyptian society, touched by Greek culture.

Well, she ruled with her younger brother, but you get what I meant.

As such Cleopatra's language was the Greek spoken by the Hellenic aristocracy, though she was reputed to be the first ruler of the dynasty to learn Egyptian. She also adopted common Egyptian beliefs and deities.

[Enadail]

And the gospels are written by people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' last years of life.

No, they weren't. They were written by people who claim to have been eye witnesses, while having extremely conflicting accounts, and having no evidence to suggest they actually lived anywhere near the same time as Jesus, if they existed at all.

[Skirrata]

Seeing as how the NE was written mostly by eye witnesses of Jesus, that died at most 20 years later than him, how are the earliest accounts 100 years after jesus?

I'll assume you mean New Testament (I have no idea what NE is). Can you please point to any evidence to suggest that they were eye witness, or that they died within 20 years of him? Specially when most contemporary evidence and analysis suggests this is nowhere near the case?

NE is the official abrev. for New Testament.

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

[Dakini]

Seeing as how the NE was written mostly by eye witnesses of Jesus, that died at most 20 years later than him, how are the earliest accounts 100 years after jesus?

I'll assume you mean New Testament (I have no idea what NE is). Can you please point to any evidence to suggest that they were eye witness, or that they died within 20 years of him? Specially when most contemporary evidence and analysis suggests this is nowhere near the case?

NE is the official abrev. for New Testament.

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

And the fact that at the earliest they were written at least 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have existed (and at the latest, 100)?
And the fact that they contradict each other (see Jesus' last words)?

[Allbeama]

Jesus to me is as real as Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, Abraham, Socrates, or Aristotle. The details of his life were greatly exaggerated though. I see him as philosopher who led a revolution of thought that had a profound impact on human history. For better or worse, that guy was a game changer.

[Enadail]

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

What you have proven is that their books say stuff and what other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus? Using a book to prove itself is not proof.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

By which logic, scientology is true.

I'm just saying.