Did Jesus exist?

[jamesmorrow]

you dont know him to make any judgement


your making the same mistake with him as you are with historical jesus. Its all just ignorance. :slap:

i am judging based on his boastful post. it appears to me that he is filled with pride and self love. which ironically is anti christian principles of being humble meek and mild. i call it how i see it.

and i have already clarified the historical vs supernatural(biblical) jesus issue.

 

[outhouse]

and i have already clarified the historical vs supernatural(biblical) jesus issue

Not one of us is argueing for a biblical jesus.

 

[jamesmorrow]

I'm honest.

Believe me, I would let you know if your posts weren't entertaining, because the posts would be terrifyingly aggravating.

And because you're senselessly attacking my Christianity, please feel free to insult me on the thread that I created for this purpose.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/101506-philosophy-angellous-background.html

not at all, i am not attacking your faith. i take issue with your boastful attitude. i understand that a man in your position with a high level of education(phd if i remember correctly) is bound to be prideful. but i am pointing out that it goes against the very principles you dedicate your life to...... and at this point i am realizing that we are going offtopic. this is not about you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i am judging based on his boastful post. it appears to me that he is filled with pride and self love. which ironically is anti christian principles of being humble meek and mild. i call it how i see it.

and i have already clarified the historical vs supernatural(biblical) jesus issue.

Now I won't deny self-love.

But for the life of me I can't figure out why you would insult me after I complimented you.

To go back to the topic - No, you haven't provided clarification on the historical Jesus because your definition has absolutely nothing to do with the common usage of the term. Now if we're living in your fantasy world, we can follow your terms and be forced to come to your conclusions.

I don't give a rat's booty what you think of Jesus, but if you want to pretend to have an intelligent discussion about it, you're going to have to express yourself in terms that are related to the topic.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Not one of us is argueing for a biblical jesus.

i understand that, and i have clarified this several posts ago. while there is no extra biblical historical evidence for the existence of the man jesus(as in eyewitness accounts) it wouldnt matter to me if there were. because in the grand scheme of things it is rather unimportant......... as soon as you throw in the supernatural claims however(which is the next logical step for a christian, even if not in this thread) it becomes an important issue.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

not at all, i am not attacking your faith. i take issue with your boastful attitude. i understand that a man in your position with a high level of education(phd if i remember correctly) is bound to be prideful. but i am pointing out that it goes against the very principles you dedicate your life to...... and at this point i am realizing that we are going offtopic. this is not about you.

If you're not attacking my faith, why on earth did you mention it?

Yes, this thread isn't about me, and I didn't make it about me. You did.

And you don't know what I have dedicated my life to. Pretending that you do is more than a little offensive.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i understand that, and i have clarified this several posts ago. while there is no extra biblical historical evidence for the existence of the man jesus(as in eyewitness accounts) it wouldnt matter to me if there were. because in the grand scheme of things it is rather unimportant......... as soon as you throw in the supernatural claims however(which is the next logical step for a christian, even if not in this thread) it becomes an important issue.

Not one that thinks!

It's a logical fallacy to presume that everyone else will follow your juvenile reasoning. Don't project your thinking onto someone else. It's sophomoric.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Now I won't deny self-love.

But for the life of me I can't figure out why you would insult me after I complimented you.

.

as i have said before. this is not about you. i do no wish to continue with this off topic conversation for much longer, but please dont be dishonest.... you did not honestly compliment me.. you let your frustration get the better of you and attempted to somehow belittle me through humor...... and thats it... i am done with this discussion. have your last word and lets move on.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not one of us is argueing for a biblical jesus.

Like water on rock - keep drip drip dripping and sooner or later something will get through.

 

[jamesmorrow]

alright, i have made my point on the issue. no extra-biblical eye witness account means there is no actual proof of the historicity of jesus outside the bible.... if there is nothing further. good night.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i understand that, and i have clarified this several posts ago. while there is no extra biblical historical evidence for the existence of the man jesus(as in eyewitness accounts) it wouldnt matter to me if there were. because in the grand scheme of things it is rather unimportant......... as soon as you throw in the supernatural claims however(which is the next logical step for a christian, even if not in this thread) it becomes an important issue.

This is backwards. In the search for the historical Jesus, all of the supernatural elements are thrown out. The historian already knows how to separate myth from historical content -- and how to tease out useful historical content from myth.

I know that's difficult to grasp. But the historian has the presence of mind to dismiss what obviously does not have a historical (natural) cause from that which is characterized as supernatural.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

alright, i have made my point on the issue. no extra-biblical eye witness account means there is no actual proof of the historicity of jesus outside the bible.... if there is nothing further. good night.

haha goodnight

 

[Quagmire]

alright, i have made my point on the issue.

And ignored everyone else's.

 

[outhouse]

alright, i have made my point on the issue. no extra-biblical eye witness account means there is no actual proof of the historicity of jesus outside the bible.... if there is nothing further. good night.

What your forgetting is that archeological evidence of what is in the bible does exist. the bible does have historicity within it.


There was a traveling teacher of judaism that spoke in parables and was baptized by John who spoke of the kingdom of god, he ticked off the romans who quickly put him on a cross. He started a movement that grew after his death and is now remembered more then any man in existance

 

[Rakhel]

haha

Jesus - supposedly died in 33CE

Josephus - 37-100CE

Tacitus - 56-117CE

OK, so Josephus was born FOUR YEARS after Jesus supposedly died.

Tacitus was born 23 years after Jesus supposedly died.

Considering every other notable person and event since Jesus lived, there's no way to fumble over 33 years, much less four - no person with any reasonable level of intellect can say that Josephus and Tacitus lived "well after" Jesus "supposedly died."

I suppose that on strength of that heroic recklessness we can conclude that Jesus never existed.

But but but...I thought Josephus was John the Baptist
Or at least he is according to Rhadamanthus.
I guess now we will never know the truth
<kicks the dust> Darn it!!!

 

[michaelsherlock]

Point taken. And very informative article. I've read a little about Josephus, and always thought his Essene experience was a little weird.

I have also heard various opinions regarding Josephus' specific theological leanings, but it seems that my point remains in tact. The argument in response to my statement, that Josephus was an Orthodox Jew and would never have called Jesus the Christ, was, that he was not an Orthodox Jew, but a Pharisee! So then, to get back to the point I was making, I will ask a question. Did the Pharisees believe Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ? If not then the point still stands, whether Pharisee or Orthodox Jew, right?

 

[michaelsherlock]

What your forgetting is that archeological evidence of what is in the bible does exist. the bible does have historicity within it.


There was a traveling teacher of judaism that spoke in parables and was baptized by John who spoke of the kingdom of god, he ticked off the romans who quickly put him on a cross. He started a movement that grew after his death and is now remembered more then any man in existance

There are certainly historically demonstratable truths within both the OT and NT, yet the same can be said for the movie Superman, Homer's Illiad, The Simpsons, Tacitus' Annals, which record Vespasian, who according to eyewitnesses could heal the blind with his spittle and perform various other miracles, (Yet evidence for Vespasian is in abundance) so whether we can prove the background of the story's setting, or not, does not in any way varify the story itself, wouldnt you agree! If it did, then all movies I have seen that contain elements of truth regarding thier settings are true stories, like the Superman example!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Exactly. I couldn't have expressed it any better. I think he totally misunderstood your post.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

not to burst anyone's bubble but tacitus and josephus were born well after the supposed death of jesus. and the quran was written long after even their deaths.... so there is no proof of the historical jesus. all that exists is hearsay, that was written on paper. which is meaningless as a historical proof for the existence of someone who lived and died long before these stories were recorded.

But as it has been pointed out already...this can be said of many many people throughout our early history. I'm not saying you're wrong or right....rather...both.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So then Augustus Caesar, who's father was a god, who's mother got pregnant from miraculously, while sleeping and a snake slithered by her. The same man who was said to be able to silence animals. The same man, who while still a baby, was found on a turret of the mansion, facing the son (even though he was put to sleep in his crib). The man who was worshipped as a god, and said to ascend to heaven. So Augustus, being said to have been supernatural, didn't exist?

Wow...he sounds similar to Yeshua....