A Skeptic 'allows' for Jesus' historicity

[docyabut2]

Yea, I was one of them; the Christians have done a good job of confusing and rationalizing the subject. Once I found some clear material on the question it was plain there is no evidence other than a couple of frauds that he existed and that the Gospels and Acts are clearly not history.

That means there is no reason to say he existed. It is not possible to go beyond that since of course one cannot disprove the existence of any mythical figure, but one has to ask how it was possible for a figure who did all those things to exist and not be mentioned, especially in Pliny.

Pliny, never mention the name of what Christ( the divine one), this group was he was writing about , Serapis followers or Jesus followers. The group could very well have been Jesus`s followers.

[Davros of Skaro]

Pliny, never mention the name of what Christ( the divine one), this group was he was writing about , Serapis followers or Jesus followers. The group could very well have been Jesus`s followers.

Sounds like you are taking something out of the "Historia Augusta (Hadrian to Servianus)" which is a later, and questionable source.

Edited June 24, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Frank Merton]

Sounds like you are taking something out of the "Historia Augusta (Hadrian to Servianus)" which is a later, and questionable source.

Something I notice that I think is kinda ugly. Christian apologists (from which no doubt our friend is drawing this) make statements without revealing the whole truth. I don't know how many times I've had Josephus quoted to me until they learn I already know about it, and then of course they retreat, but if I had not known they would have made their dishonest point.

[Doug1029]

I think about all we can say is if Jesus actually existed, then he was born, lived awhile, and died.

Reasonable assumptions.

There is just a little bit more: the stories/legends exist. That's a fact. And it's evidence. They had to originate somewhere about someone. That suggests there might really have been someone the legends are referring to.

But where he was from? Nazareth, if it existed in the first century, was a tiny place with a cemetery (which served a larger city further away) and two or three houses and a spring. The modern site does not match the biblical description (There's no cliff.). But did it exist? If one is going to use Josephus as a source, then one has to ask why he didn't include Nazareth on his list of Galilean cities.

As far as I can tell, the only thing one can say about Jesus is that there MIGHT have been such a person.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

It seems there was no "Nazareth" until the third century when Constantine's mother on a tour of the area noticed there wasn't one and so picked out a place and declared it Nazareth and built a church. Until then with one minor possible exception that can be debated, the place goes unmentioned anywhere. As for archaeological findings, you dig anywhere in that area you will find things. What has been found and identified as Nazareth is just Israeli Tourist Office hype.

People should study myths and how they develop before thinking there has to be anything concrete behind them. Huge mythical epochs can evolve in only a few generations of oral repetition. It has been observed. I think though that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a misreading by Greek pre-Christians (maybe mystical types) of the LXX in Isaiah where the Messiah is predicted to be of the "stem of Japeth." Greek practice was to identify someone with name and place of origin, so that was taken as a proper name and became what we have.

[DeWitz]

In his opinion.

Correct. Historicity is not the same as Divinity.

Skepticism does not require a non-historical Jesus. Christianity, however, does.

Divinity wasn't part of the OP.

Christianity requires a 'non-historical Jesus?'

Edited June 24, 2014 by DeWitz

[+Link of Hyrule]

What has been found and identified as Nazareth is just Israeli Tourist Office hype.

This is not what historians have concluded, though it may be the extreme scepticism argument. Nazareth is confirmed to have been a real place in 1st Century Judea. You can claim I'm just hooking on to pro-Christian bias, but if you did then you'd be opening yourself up to the exact same bias.

[Tiggs]

Divinity wasn't part of the OP.

But relevant to why the skeptical position is not challenged by a historical Jesus.

Christianity requires a 'non-historical Jesus?'

Christianity requires a historical Jesus. Terrible phrasing on my part.

What I was attempting to show is that while Skepticism has no requirement in either direction - Christianity does.

[Doug1029]

This is not what historians have concluded, though it may be the extreme scepticism argument. Nazareth is confirmed to have been a real place in 1st Century Judea. You can claim I'm just hooking on to pro-Christian bias, but if you did then you'd be opening yourself up to the exact same bias.

Could you please present the evidence? Not just the usual speculation by "experts" and "historians" without anything to back up what you/they are saying. Who discovered "Nazareth" and when? What makes them think the place they discovered was Nazareth? Why does the modern Nazareth not match the biblical description?

There's a spring at modern Nazareth. It probably existed in the first century. The area is desert; water is important; it is quite likely the spring had a name. Could that name have been "Nazareth?" Is there a first-century reference to it in the literature? If so, how do we know the reference is to the place we now call Nazareth?

I have an explanation for why modern Nazareth has no cliff, as called for in the Bible: the Bible is describing some other place! It was St. Helena who decided that the modern location was "Nazareth." She mis-identified a lot of other biblical locations, including Mt. Sinai, the site of the Nativity and a salt pillar called "Lot's Wife." She got her information from local inn-keepers, Bedouin guides and such. That is the source of your "historian's" information. GIGO.

If you want to know where "the real Nazareth" was, look for a city with a cliff in it. That's the only real clue you have to go on.

Doug

[gatekeeper32]

This is a total non sequitur because their is documentation that says he existed.I hope that people that hold up reason to take it a step further by going over the information themselves inwhich I provided a starting point.

Here is a perfect example of the blindness of millions of people, yet Christians suffer the same psychosis.

I do believe you had made a bias conclusion to assume the argument is meant to debate religion when the actual argument is on finding historical accuracy and the resistance people offer to any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The statement made was one common example used in the argument of the existence of Jesus as to the lack of historical documentation where I give the counter argument of finding any records of an ancestors in pointing to the fact that as one goes back further in history such evidence becomes impossible to find as they are lost to time. If I could ask what is the origin that began your stand on disproving religion?

[Davros of Skaro]

Something I notice that I think is kinda ugly. Christian apologists (from which no doubt our friend is drawing this) make statements without revealing the whole truth. I don't know how many times I've had Josephus quoted to me until they learn I already know about it, and then of course they retreat, but if I had not known they would have made their dishonest point.

I have Atheists do that too, but it's out of not being educated on the subject.That's of course why I bring the information forth hoping with fingers crossed they look at it.

[Davros of Skaro]

I do believe you had made a bias conclusion to assume the argument is meant to debate religion when the actual argument is on finding historical accuracy and the resistance people offer to any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The statement made was one common example used in the argument of the existence of Jesus as to the lack of historical documentation where I give the counter argument of finding any records of an ancestors in pointing to the fact that as one goes back further in history such evidence becomes impossible to find as they are lost to time.

No.You are using a Red Herring used by Apologists to throw people off the trail.There is evidence for Jesus and it's called the New Testament.All one has to do is look over it with valid methods instead of the invalid methods that plague this field of study.

If I could ask what is the origin that began your stand on disproving religion?

Dealing with people of faith in person and seeing the results with my own eyes.

[gatekeeper32]

Looks to me you seem to be subjective on this topic and I am trying to use exemplar reasoning. Shall we use non-biblical sources then and lose this subjective bias?

[Davros of Skaro]

Looks to me you seem to be subjective on this topic and I am trying to use exemplar reasoning. Shall we use non-biblical sources then and lose this subjective bias?

No. You are using a fallacious argument that has nothing to do with proper methodology.

I put nonBiblical sources often cited for historicity in post #9 of this thread.

[Perceptivum]

Just the way you talk is evidence with no assumption needed.

Since you could not figure out before that drugs and getting into fights was not smart, what makes you so sure you have things figured out now?

That's funny as I don't ever remember talking to you before. You must have meant "Just the way you write is evidence...". Regardless, I will not debate someone about something so ridiculous, I know what I have and what I have not read or listened to; I need not lie about it.

My behavior before accepting Christ was not about right and wrong, dumb or smart; it was more about trying to fill a void and living for myself, in the moment. When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I found that missing piece of the puzzle (I was filled with the Holy Spirit), I started living for more than self gratification, and I began to understand where God wanted me to be (i.e., what is His plan for me and following His path).

I know that I have nothing figured out - never will - but what I do know for certain is that I'm on the right path and God will lead me where He needs me to further His kingdom; whether or not historians confirm Jesus' existence.

[Davros of Skaro]

That's funny as I don't ever remember talking to you before. You must have meant "Just the way you write is evidence...". Regardless, I will not debate someone about something so ridiculous, I know what I have and what I have not read or listened to; I need not lie about it.

My behavior before accepting Christ was not about right and wrong, dumb or smart; it was more about trying to fill a void and living for myself, in the moment. When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I found that missing piece of the puzzle (I was filled with the Holy Spirit), I started living for more than self gratification, and I began to understand where God wanted me to be (i.e., what is His plan for me and following His path).

I know that I have nothing figured out - never will - but what I do know for certain is that I'm on the right path and God will lead me where He needs me to further His kingdom; whether or not historians confirm Jesus' existence.

First off I have seem many of your posts in the past.

Have fun with your imaginary friend that theatens torture for not believing in it.

[DeWitz]

<snip>

Edited June 24, 2014 by DeWitz

[Doug1029]

I do believe you had made a bias conclusion to assume the argument is meant to debate religion when the actual argument is on finding historical accuracy and the resistance people offer to any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The statement made was one common example used in the argument of the existence of Jesus as to the lack of historical documentation where I give the counter argument of finding any records of an ancestors in pointing to the fact that as one goes back further in history such evidence becomes impossible to find as they are lost to time. If I could ask what is the origin that began your stand on disproving religion?

As time progresses, supporting evidence is lost. Thus it becomes impossible to say with certainty that such-and-such happened, or so-and-so really existed. So what is wrong with admitting that we don't know?

There really is (as far as I know) no objective way to say that Jesus existed. We can say he might have existed. We can say we believe he existed. But we do not have the evidence to say that he existed. Christians can twist the truth any way they want, but they still lack the evidence.

Doug

[Almagest]

Atheist, skeptic and believer in the historical Jesus of Nazareth here. I agree that we can't really use the Gospels as a source for details about the life of Jesus, but several things about them suggest that they were inspired by a real person. If Christianity was a deliberate fabrication how do you account for the inconsistencies between the four Gospels? Many of the events are the same, but differ in the details. What happened at the trial? What were Jesus's last words? Who found the opened tomb? I think it is likely that these inconsistencies are the result of oral tales evolving over the decades before being recorded. The Gospel authors also had different points of view on certain matters of theology, particularly when it came to the precise nature of Jesus. The earliest Gospel, Mark, isn't as clear on the matter as the latest Gospel, John, is. This suggests to me a natural evolution, not artifice.

Of course I don't see any reason why accepting a historical Jesus does anything to undermine my non-belief, and I'm not sure why my fellow atheists are so focused on the idea. Everyone accepts that religious followings can arise after a teachers death, regardless of the truth of their doctrine. Centuries separate the life of the Siddhartha Gautama and the recording of his teachings, but no one suggests he was a fictional character.

[gatekeeper32]

No. You are using a fallacious argument that has nothing to do with proper methodology.

I put nonBiblical sources often cited for historicity in post #9 of this thread.

I have ready the thread and found you to only argue the historical sources to either be wrong, false or flawed while holding a strong disposition against religion. Also I sense either some mind projection or moral high ground fallacy in your postings here. This makes me cautious on introducing other historical sources or any archaeology evidence with you being this subjective. Straight to the point what evidence or proof must be presented to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus(nothing involving the supernatural, religion, spirits, etc. Just to determine if an individual was alive) to your satisfaction that would be free from the bias or prejudice you hold?

Edited June 24, 2014 by gatekeeper32

[Davros of Skaro]

Atheist, skeptic and believer in the historical Jesus of Nazareth here. I agree that we can't really use the Gospels as a source for details about the life of Jesus, but several things about them suggest that they were inspired by a real person. If Christianity was a deliberate fabrication how do you account for the inconsistencies between the four Gospels? Many of the events are the same, but differ in the details. What happened at the trial? What were Jesus's last words? Who found the opened tomb? I think it is likely that these inconsistencies are the result of oral tales evolving over the decades before being recorded. The Gospel authors also had different points of view on certain matters of theology, particularly when it came to the precise nature of Jesus. The earliest Gospel, Mark, isn't as clear on the matter as the latest Gospel, John, is. This suggests to me a natural evolution, not artifice.&#160;

One time during 5th grade I had to do a report on the Statue of Liberty.I was in no mood going to the Library and source from several books to make an original report.I just wrote down the article from my home Encyclopedia.I changed things around, and replaced words like "illuminated" to "lighted" to reflect what the teacher would think I would write.

Is this any much different than the unknown people who wrote Matthew, then Luke, and then John?Reading these Gospels side by side with the original Mark you see the story get bigger, and adding details that was pressing to the author of each Gospel.

If that Statue of Liberty article I was making an altered copy of did not have to conform to checkable facts?If I thought the original article would fall to the wayside and my report was to be the authority?If I did not know that my report was going to be in a four part compilation in the future way past my death?

I would change things up some too.

The Gospels are "Good News" articles of faith to get you to believe, and I could go into further details with it's problems.

“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.”-Bertrand Russel

BTW I received a "100" for the report, but it did not inspire me to cheat more.

Of course I don't see any reason why accepting a historical Jesus does anything to undermine my non-belief, and I'm not sure why my fellow atheists are so focused on the idea. Everyone accepts that religious followings can arise after a teachers death, regardless of the truth of their doctrine. Centuries separate the life of the Siddhartha Gautama and the recording of his teachings, but no one suggests he was a fictional character.

I was never in the realm of believing either, but I attribute that to not having it forced on me, my interest in science, and how illogical the Theology is.All my life except the past couple of years I thought Jesus was a historical character caught up in myth.

Now I believe Jesus was never historical, and his origins come from what certain heretical Jewish sects saw in select verses in the Old Testament, and trends going on around that era.

If this interests anyone, then put aside 100 minutes of your time, and watch the third lecture linked in my signature.

Edited June 24, 2014 by davros of skaro

[Davros of Skaro]

I have ready the thread and found you to only argue the historical sources to either be wrong, false or flawed while holding a strong disposition against religion. Also I sense either some mind projection or moral high ground fallacy in your postings here. This makes me cautious on introducing other historical sources or any archaeology evidence with you being this subjective. Straight to the point what evidence or proof must be presented to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus(nothing involving the supernatural, religion, spirits, etc. Just to determine if an individual was alive) to your satisfaction that would be free from the bias or prejudice you hold?

Let me guess...

Exhibit A: The Shroud of Turin.

Exhibit B: Millions of people believe.

Exhibit C: 10,000's of documents, but nevermind that they are from several later centuries.

[Davros of Skaro]

Snip

Edited June 24, 2014 by davros of skaro

[gatekeeper32]

Let me guess...

Exhibit A: The Shroud of Turin.

Exhibit B: Millions of people believe.

Exhibit C: 10,000's of documents, but nevermind that they are from several later centuries.

Actually more like the burial box of Jesus, the Babylonian Talmud and Mara Bar-Serapion yet not surprised to such an bias conclusion which answers my question no amount of evidence would be satisfactory as you lock in this view. I will leave you with these words, try to be lease harsh and judgemental on any philosophy that people have abused in the past if you must argue and disagree about beliefs please do with comtempt and respect.

Edited June 25, 2014 by gatekeeper32

[Davros of Skaro]

Actually more like the burial box of Jesus, the Babylonian Talmud and Mara Bar-Serapion yet not surprised to such an bias conclusion which answers my question no amount of evidence would be satisfactory as you lock in this view. I will leave you with these words, try to be lease harsh and judgemental on any philosophy that people have abused in the past if you must argue and disagree about beliefs please do with comtempt and respect.

Funny how I was going to put the "Ossuary" in the Exhibit file, but I am glad you made my point.Of course the other two you mentioned is in post #9.

In the other forums on here people post stuff like "Aliens built the Pyramids" and they get slammed for false beliefs.Just because many more people fall for Man's natural talent to deceive themselves for an older false belief does not mean I have to respect it.I would not want to be born into something that I have to build walls in my Brain that reroutes thought in order to continue the belief in nonreality.

What kind of parents, and people would they be if they kept on enforcing the belief of Santa Claus on Children?

Edited June 25, 2014 by davros of skaro