• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

To The Jesus Myth Theorist

cablescavenger

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Quagmire said:
So you're saying the Josephus passage about John the Baptist is acceptable, even though it was written several generations after the fact, while the two passages about Jesus from the same work are unacceptable.

How does that work?
Click to expand...

FB says that no one questions the existence of John the Baptist, and I said that wasn't true. And provided a link from someone stating that his existence was in question by starting his piece with

As the historical existence of John the Baptist is now also denied,
and as a first-century secular testimony to him is declared "a
shameless interpolation
Click to expand...

I agree John the Baptist suffers the same issues as Jesus.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
cablescavenger said:
FB says that no one questions the existence of John the Baptist, and I said that wasn't true. And provided a link from someone stating that his existence was in question by starting his piece with
Click to expand...

Ah, OK. Misunderstood what you were getting at with that.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
cablescavenger said:
That's not strictly true.
Click to expand...
Okay, there are a few who had denied that he did not exist. However, the link you provided seem to be quoting from people over a hundred years ago. Among scholars and historians, there is no disagreement. Even most Jesus-mythers accept that John lived.
If the biographies were the only evidence for Alexander you would be right to be sceptical,
Click to expand...
You missed what I said. I didn't say that one should be skeptical about Alexander. I stated that we don't have writings about him until long after.
I don't follow what you are saying here?

If you are questioning whether the emperors existed, based on writing alone which could have been corrupted, then I agree you should do this. That is what I have been saying all along.

Physial evidence doesn't make the writings about the emperors any more true, it just proves they existed in the first place and are not a myth.

There is a lot of supporting physical evidence for many of the emperors in the form of statues, busts, coins, mosaics, carvings, art, pottery, buildings, burial chambers, their personal belongings, recorded lineages and so on, so we don't just rely on the writings.

With the writings, they are copies of copies, so you woud have to consider if there are any motives for people over the centuries altering the written accounts of events, whether they be for political, economical, religious or any other reason.
Click to expand...
You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying there is doubt they existed. I was simply pointing out that it was very common for people to be written about only long after they died. Since most people were not written about until long after they died, it should be no wonder that Jesus wasn't either.
 
crystalonyx

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying there is doubt they existed. I was simply pointing out that it was very common for people to be written about only long after they died. Since most people were not written about until long after they died, it should be no wonder that Jesus wasn't either.
Click to expand...

Negative evidence is never very convincing. You're bascially saying that since there is nothhng written about the supposed Jesus until longer after his supposed death, this does not hurt the case for his existence. It actually does, as many peoplel in history were written about when they were alive (Julius Caeser), and many had their OWN WRITINGS to add more weight to their existence. As far as we know, the supposed Jesus wrote nothing of note.:)
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
crystalonyx said:
Negative evidence is never very convincing. You're bascially saying that since there is nothhng written about the supposed Jesus until longer after his supposed death, this does not hurt the case for his existence. It actually does, as many peoplel in history were written about when they were alive (Julius Caeser), and many had their OWN WRITINGS to add more weight to their existence. As far as we know, the supposed Jesus wrote nothing of note.:)
Click to expand...

Weren't the people of Luke 3 vs 1,2 real and alive persons?

No one wrote questioning the public temple records [Luke 3 vs 23-38] as being wrong.

The name 'Christian' comes from Christ Jesus.

Tacitus mentions Pontius Pilate in connection to Christ.
Wasn't Pilate a real person?
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
crystalonyx said:
Negative evidence is never very convincing. You're bascially saying that since there is nothhng written about the supposed Jesus until longer after his supposed death, this does not hurt the case for his existence. It actually does, as many peoplel in history were written about when they were alive (Julius Caeser), and many had their OWN WRITINGS to add more weight to their existence. As far as we know, the supposed Jesus wrote nothing of note.:)
Click to expand...

You're just going to keep repeating the same invalid point over and over no matter how many times someone tries to explain to you why it isn't valid, aren't you? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top