did jesus exist?

[fallingblood]

Thats not what it says lol. It basically says and I agree NO ONE TRULY knows, it could be as early as 60ce or as late as 85ce or more.... What are you trying to do? Confuse yourself.........

The bottom line is you cannot prove anything, at all!!! No one can, and all your proving is what an inconsiderate self-righteous person you think you are, must be a Christian. So good luck with that....

You didn't read what you posted did you? Here, to make it easy for you: Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

Most critical scholars date it about 70 C.E. though.

And I'm not a Christian. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe Jesus was anything special and I actually disagree with Christianity on many issues. If anything, my beliefs are closer to Judaism.

As for being inconsiderate, if proving you wrong is inconsiderate, I guess I'm guilty. But I think you saying something like that is along the lines of the kettle calling the pot black.

Finally, simply dismissing the information because it doesn't agree with you is not a way to debate. You need to form a much better argument if you're going to be taken seriously.

 

[MW0082]

You didn't read what you posted did you? Here, to make it easy for you: Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

Most critical scholars date it about 70 C.E. though.

And I'm not a Christian. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe Jesus was anything special and I actually disagree with Christianity on many issues. If anything, my beliefs are closer to Judaism.

As for being inconsiderate, if proving you wrong is inconsiderate, I guess I'm guilty. But I think you saying something like that is along the lines of the kettle calling the pot black.

Finally, simply dismissing the information because it doesn't agree with you is not a way to debate. You need to form a much better argument if you're going to be taken seriously.

I am in no way dismissing it, I am simply letting you know that there is a wide range of dates. There is no universal scholar or method or anything that can date it to be precise. Again your debating scemantics which is not a debate I am sorry to say. Thats your own personal beliefs not facts...

 

[fallingblood]

I am in no way dismissing it, I am simply letting you know that there is a wide range of dates. There is no universal scholar or method or anything that can date it to be precise. Again your debating scemantics which is not a debate I am sorry to say. Thats your own personal beliefs not facts...

There is a relatively small range of dates; 10 years. As for dating a book such as Mark, we can get pretty close. That is why scholars agree that it was written around 70 C.E. (plus or minus 5 years). Which, as I stated, puts it only 40 years after the death of Jesus. As a side note, Paul was writing within about 20 years. Not a big gap in time at all.

Trying to discredit me though won't work. I've presented you my side. You've actually supported my side by mistake. We have both shown that it was around 40 years (not the 70 that you claimed) that the first Gospel was written.

 

[dogsgod]

There is a relatively small range of dates; 10 years. As for dating a book such as Mark, we can get pretty close. That is why scholars agree that it was written around 70 C.E. (plus or minus 5 years). Which, as I stated, puts it only 40 years after the death of Jesus. As a side note, Paul was writing within about 20 years. Not a big gap in time at all.

Trying to discredit me though won't work. I've presented you my side. You've actually supported my side by mistake. We have both shown that it was around 40 years (not the 70 that you claimed) that the first Gospel was written.

Mark claims Jesus died during the time of Pilate. What evidence is there to back up such a claim besides the fact that there isn't any? Even Paul doesn't offer any support for a crucifixion in his recent past, he provides no places, no dates, nor witnesses. So what do we have to back up the author of Mark's claim that Jesus died during the time of Pilate?

 

[Sunstone]

Jesus did more than just exist... every now and then he got out and partied!

 

[Quagmire]

So what do we have to back up the author of Mark's claim that Jesus died during the time of Pilate?

If he did exist then, put in the context of some other events that the gospels say happened during his ministry; the ministry and execution of John the Baptist, Herod's war with his father-in-law, to name 2, then his crucifixion would have happened during the time of Pilate.

Not saying that any of this proves his existence, just that the gospels are consistent and non-contradictory about events during that time frame.

Either he was an historical figure or a fictional character placed in an accurate historical time-frame.

 

[dogsgod]

If he did exist then, put in the context of some other events that the gospels say happened during his ministry; the ministry and execution of John the Baptist, Herod's war with his father-in-law, to name 2, then his crucifixion would have happened during the time of Pilate.

Not saying that any of this proves his existence, just that the gospels are consistent and non-contradictory about events during that time frame.

Either he was an historical figure or a fictional character placed in an accurate historical time-frame.

John the Baptist was killed early in the gospels but did not die until 36CE according to Josephus.

Herod was a real king, Galilee was a real place, but the time and setting of a story does not make it real. So far there is nothing to suggest an historical figure behind the myth, it's just a belief, an unsubstantiated assumption. Jesus may have been an historical figure but there is nothing to support the assumption, so no real reason to accept the notion as true.

 

[fallingblood]

John the Baptist was killed early in the gospels but did not die until 36CE according to Josephus.

Herod was a real king, Galilee was a real place, but the time and setting of a story does not make it real. So far there is nothing to suggest an historical figure behind the myth, it's just a belief, an unsubstantiated assumption. Jesus may have been an historical figure but there is nothing to support the assumption, so no real reason to accept the notion as true.

What evidence is there that he didn't exist?

We have four Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus. All give more than enough evidence that Jesus existed.

 

[dogsgod]

What evidence is there that he didn't exist?

We have four Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus. All give more than enough evidence that Jesus existed.

Only a fool asks what evidence is there for the non existence of something. What does evidence for the non existence of something supposed to look like?

 

[dogsgod]

We have four Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus. All give more than enough evidence that Jesus existed.

Then prove it, provide the evidence.

 

[fallingblood]

Then prove it, provide the evidence.

Do you want some sources?

This should do for now:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94713-why-people-doubt-jesus-existed.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/82365-groundwork-historical-jesus-research.html

You've been in more than enough threads on this subject to know the evidence. You simply dismiss without giving any credible reason to do so.

 

[dogsgod]

Do you want some sources?

This should do for now:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/94713-why-people-doubt-jesus-existed.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...365-groundwork-historical-jesus-research.html

You've been in more than enough threads on this subject to know the evidence. You simply dismiss without giving any credible reason to do so.

You no doubt don't see the absurdity of using a religious forum to validate what you propose on a religious forum. But then, you're the same person that uses the gospels to validate the gospels, so of course you don't see the absurdity in that.

 

[dogsgod]

People doubt Jesus existed because believers can't make their case for such an existence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[waitasec]

What evidence is there that he didn't exist?

We have four Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus. All give more than enough evidence that Jesus existed.

i thought josephus flavius' birth was recorded as 37 C.E. after the alleged crucifixion of jesus, which puts him out of range as an eyewitness. and, didn't he write antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written?, even if his accounts about jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

 

[dogsgod]

i thought josephus flavius' birth was recorded as 37 C.E. after the alleged crucifixion of jesus, which puts him out of range as an eyewitness. and, didn't he write antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written?, even if his accounts about jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

There are no non Christian references to this Jesus from the first century so believers put a lot of stock in Josephus as if he is the answer to their prayers. Unfortunately, in addition to what you pointed out, the Jesus references appear to have been later interpolations by Christian custodians of his work, but it doesn't stop believers from clinging desperately to them.

 

[fallingblood]

You no doubt don't see the absurdity of using a religious forum to validate what you propose on a religious forum. But then, you're the same person that uses the gospels to validate the gospels, so of course you don't see the absurdity in that.

If you can debate what was on those links just admit to it. I don't want your excuses.

Here is another site: FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS

And what about some books:
The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan is a good start. Or the smaller version, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Then there is L. Michael White's book called From Jesus to Christianity.

There is also the classic, The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

There is also The Birth of Christianity from John Dominic Crossan

The Historical Jesus: Five Views is a great comparison on the subject.

Or maybe you would like to watch a documentary on the subject. PBS has a great one called From Jesus to Christ.

 

[waitasec]

There are no non Christian references to this Jesus from the first century so believers put a lot of stock in Josephus as if he is the answer to their prayers. Unfortunately the Jesus references appear to have been later interpolations by Christian custodians of his work, but it doesn't stop believers from clinging disparately to them.

it is nothing more than biased history
who knows how much we know is accurate?
if we were to take paul's writings/letters, who claims to have seen the resurrected jesus...uh, hmmmm... need i say more?

 

[fallingblood]

People doubt Jesus existed because believers can't make their case for such an existence. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you are just choosing to ignore that over 200 years of critical research into the life of Jesus? Great, that explains a lot.

 

[fallingblood]

i thought josephus flavius' birth was recorded as 37 C.E. after the alleged crucifixion of jesus, which puts him out of range as an eyewitness. and, didn't he write antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written?, even if his accounts about jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Hearsay does not mean bad. We allow hearsay, on occasions, even in court. Much of history itself is hearsay. The news in general is hearsay.

Josephus was doing what historians do, he compiled history. He was alive during the time of the disciples of Jesus. He was alive during the time of the followers of Jesus.

More so, he would have been alive during the death of James, who he labels as the brother of Jesus. So he was around during the time of key players in the life of Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

There are no non Christian references to this Jesus from the first century so believers put a lot of stock in Josephus as if he is the answer to their prayers. Unfortunately, in addition to what you pointed out, the Jesus references appear to have been later interpolations by Christian custodians of his work, but it doesn't stop believers from clinging desperately to them.

Do you ever get sick of spreading that propaganda? You are aware that there are two references in Josephus to Jesus, the smaller one being widely accepted.

The longer one, scholars are agree, contains interpolations to an account that already spoke of Jesus. You try to dismiss Josephus, but your argument is lacking any actual research.

To sum up, we can dismiss the longer account of Jesus in Josephus, but we would still be left with a nearly undisputed account of Jesus in Josephus anyway.