Sheshbazzar

As this statement appears to be a response directed at me, I'll respond personally.
I repeat, It is easy to misapprehend another's ideas, beliefs, and positions.
You are evidently not at all familiar with the ideas, beliefs, and positions that I have expressed in hundreds of posts in these forums.
If you were, then you would be aware that I most certainly DO NOT suggest that "Christians" made the "history"<sic> of "jesus"<sic> up individually at that time"- so YES, Damn right you didnt.
In a nutshell, I do not accept that the so called "Christian" books were even written by "Christian" writers.
Yes, they are "there" and "have been for centuries", and stand as evidence of the tampering with of their texts by the much latter invented "Christian Church".
And actually all of the evidence of scholarship indicates that you (if you care to identify yourself with that "Christian Church") actually DID "make josephus write about jesus" much -latter- than 90 AD.


Anyone can compose a "story" or "fable" containing characters drawn from actual history, and put words into their mouths that they never spoke, and accuse them of acts that they never committed, to make up a better "story", simply abusing historical characters in this way does not make the "story" into a trustworthy history, a fable it was, and a fable it remains.
You may strip it of some of its more fantastic elements, and may disclaim many of its more obviously bogus allegations, and still nothing will be left or emerge from it beyond the fact that it was a fable, and still is only a fable.

That alleged "testimony to jesus" is contradictory, contrived, and is quite obviously fabricated, moreover that testimony evidence has suffered from a continual tampering with its contents that extends into the present day, Did you ever ask yourself why there are so many "versions" of the Babel, er, the bible?
No one here intends to "make it go away" We want to preserve it, as it IS the primary evidence that the claims of Christianity are patently fraudulent.

The Bible, the testimony of real history and just plain common sense, are alone sufficient to establish that no such figure as is portrayed within the "gospels" ever actually existed, or did the things that are therein claimed.
If that "jesus" that you want to be "real" does NOT actually fit the description of that "jesus" described within the books, then he would not be that jesus.
So you end up serving a lie created by yourself, one NOT fitting the description of the god of the bible, but one that you have fashioned and conformed to fit only to whatever you as an individual would allow. Not a very appetizing god for the rest of humanity.

And with the original jesus being purely a literary creation and character, there simply is nothing to disprove about his existence, he didn't exist, and it is impossible to prove something didn't exist that never existed in the first place.


Do YOU believe that he did all of those miracles? and that every word that was written 40+ years after these alleged events, actually came out of his mouth?
That is are you willing to unequivocally state that the text of your New Testament is both infallible, and 100% accurate in its conveyance of the words, acts and facts relating to your god?
Of course those -"sources of info ARE suspect in some way",- but only because by reason, and by their own internal conflicts, they are so worthy of being suspect.
If they had accurately recorded history, that agreed with, or could be corroborated by outside sources testimony and evidence, and If the texts were consistent in presenting their case, without contradictions requiring the resorting to ever more elaborate and contrived apologetics, Then perhaps one might justify the suspension of a disbelief in the more fantastic elements and claims.
But as the texts stand, they are rife with historical inaccuracies and clear contradictions, indicative that they are fictional, and that they could not be the product of an all-knowing or beneficent god.
For such a god, had he existed, would have known of all of the glaring deficiencies contained within these so-called inspired text, and IF he had really wanted to "save" us, and for us to believe in him, and in that text, and IF he really was compassionate, and IF he really did love us, he would never have allowed such a deficient text to have been written in his name.

Or is it your beliefe that your "compassionate" and "loving" god deliberately set out to deceive us into NOT believing in him?

Remember I, and many others here at the first, chose to believe in him, and in the texts about him, yet we came to disbelieve only because those texts betrayed the validity of our beliefe. We could no longer abide the defending of inspired texts that were obviously so contradictory and deficient.

No, reniaa, "the burden of proof" IS NOT on us guys, as you are the one here attempting to support a fantastic claim, it remains YOUR responsibility to substantiate and provide proof of the truth of that claim.


No, reniaa, you do not have any "historical documents", what you have is a collection of old fairy-tales that you would like to believe are a "history" but do not fit the facts of any history other than that seriously deficient and distorted version that is contained only within them, and even there they stand as witnesses against themselves.

joedad

The NT gospels read like a dramatic script. If I had to guess their origin I would say they are borrowed or largely plagiarized theatrical documents.

Eddie Schultz

According to this http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm any so called evidence for jesus is hearsay. Is this fairly accurate?

Thanks,
Eddie

Solitary Man

By legal definition, all ancient manuscripts are hearsay.

Solitary Man

Evidence?

aa5874

You forget so quickly your previous statement.

What evidence do you want? You must mean you want hearsay.

Sheshbazzar

No, all ancient manuscripts are NOT hearsay by legal definition.
What makes the "gospels" hearsay is the fact that they were written so long after the events they purport to relate, by writers who did not personally witness nor hear first-hand the events nor the speeches that they report.
At best, they are only second-hand reporters writing of what others (who strangely, did not leave even one personal account, and are always conveniently dead or unavailable) claimed to have seen or heard.
To be a valid witness to any evidence requires that you were present, and can provide genuine first-hand knowledge of what was done, by whom, and what was said and by whom, not a memorized recitation of what someone else has claimed that a third party did or said.

Yes Eddie, it is fairly accurate to say that "any so called (ancient) evidence for Jesus is hearsay."
Now if a witness comes forward and testifies that jezus met him at the pub yesterday, and was wearing a yellow Neiman-Marcus suit and brown Gucci loafers, and had told him to go out and tell everyone that he'd finally arrived, and that if anyone wanted to meet with him, to go the gathering on April 1st at Woodstock.
Then that is that persons first-hand testimony, and not hearsay. You could buy it or reject it, same as with all of that "old-time testifying" that goes down in churches every Sunday all over the Babel Belt.

No Robots

The entire Talmud fits this description.

Solitary Man

And Livy.

Toto

This sounds like an argument against the Talmud and Livy. Except that I don't think that the Talmud was meant to be taken as history, and Livy at least gives some of his sources.