Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roach Clips · 04-23-2006, 10:54 PM

I'm debating with someone about a historical Jesus and here was my opening statement. Remember, this is a small forum with only a few hundred active posters, so I kept it as short as possible and I'm just an amatuer. I'd appreciate any criticism.

---------

Even if Josephus did refer to Jesus two times in his "Antiqueties of the Jews," written in the 90s Ce, he isn't an eye witness to Jesus Christ and could just be repeating hearsay of early Christians about a founder of their religion. At best, ignoring the problem of its authenticity, it's a historical maybe.

"as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources"

There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.

So far Jesus Christ is at best a historical maybe with-out using the Bible to prove he existed.

But I'll have to use the biblical record if I want to talk about an HJ. So let's look at the Bible's record of Jesus Christ. Its not much better than the non-biblical record. There is no biblical eye witness to a human Jesus either... Hmm? Paul and all first century writer's of the Bible saw Jesus only through visions and never with their own eyes... Wonder why that was? Paul, and all first century epistles, never mention a "Jesus of Nazareth," his birth place, his parents, any of the twelve apostles, Calvary hill, or the empty tomb and only talk about a divine being Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour) who is revealed to them through revelations with God... Maybe it's because they never heard of "Jesus of Nazareth"?? The Gospels, with the first mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," were written, at the earliest starting around 70CE, about 40 years after the human Jesus was sopposedly crucified...

Not one author of the NT is an eye-witness. Not to mention that to this day they can't find the empty tomb where Jesus was resurrected. Nor do they have any physical evidence of a human Jesus, no clothing or any other artifact from his life. Pieces of the true cross never even started to appear until after 200 CE.

Where's Jesus? Was there ever a Jesus of Nazareth, a human male? Did Christianity begin with a mythological Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour), a supernatural force revealed only through visions, and not with a historical Jesus of Nazareth, a human who lived and preached in Palestine less than 2000 years ago?

Roach Clips · 04-23-2006, 11:05 PM

For whom it may concern; this is how the debate got started, in another thread talking about end time prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

The good ole Jesus myth. You do realise that there is absolutely no evidence that jesus existed, don't you? and the NT wasn't even started until 100 years after his sopposed death.

Please keep posting, every topic like this has someone like you inserted in for comedic effect for the rest of us.

For the record, I believe in this (the end is near) as well, and I'm impressed at how many of you really seem to have a fairly accurate knowledge of this, and were well articulated in your sources and references.

Also what someone posted earlier was true - the early disciples expected the second coming to be shortly after the ascension, even though there was never anything expressly stated of that - but they lived like it could be any day.

IMO the date Israel became a Nation in 1947 I believe, started the end times into its final phase.

Micah could probably own anyone that wants to argue the human existence of Christ, and I could further own Micah -

You don't have to believe in the end times, but you'll be ridiculed out of every scholors library if you try and denounce he ever existed. There are historians that are from Harvard and the best Universities int he world, that wouldn't even dare to suggest that he never lived -in fact the Jewish Historian Josephus also wrote about him several times, as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources.

I could bury you with source after source - do yourself a favor, either educate yourself, and stop being a parrot, or just don't open your mouth in this topic - better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

“Also what someone posted earlier was true - the early disciples expected the second coming to be shortly after the ascension, even though there was never anything expressly stated of that - but they lived like it could be any day.” Wrong. In Mark 13:30, when Jesus was preaching of the signs of the end times, Jesus “expressly stated” that the end times would come shortly after his death, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place”

“you'll be ridiculed out of every scholors library if you try and denounce he ever existed. There are historians that are from Harvard and the best Universities int he world, that wouldn't even dare to suggest that he never lived.” This is simply an “appeal to authority” fallacy and cannot by itself be used as evidence for a HJ (historical Jesus). The Jesus Myth theory has been resisted by NT scholars since it was first put forward 200 years ago. Why? Because the majority working in the field of NT research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se. This is a field where you can argue that Jesus was the son of a Canaanite sky God who rose from the dead and be accepted as a scholar but you can’t argue that he was a myth… What’s up with that?

“in fact the Jewish Historian Josephus also wrote about him several times, as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources” Josephus referred to Jesus twice in his “Antiquities of the Jews,” written in the 90s CE, but the passages are very dubious and show clear signs of tampering. In fact, the first reference is so Christian, that it is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" because of its gospel-like message. Take a look at perhaps the best survey of the passages done by Peter Kirby at EarlyChristianWritings.com. He examines both passages and the evidences for and against their authenticity. He concludes that first reference is spurious and the second contains an interpolation.

”I could bury you with source after source - do yourself a favor, either educate yourself, and stop being a parrot, or just don't open your mouth in this topic - better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.” Now onto the ad hominem fallacies (”Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak). You can’t or don’t want to argue your case so you attack me? Yes, that’s a great debating strategy.

I can't seem to make another post, I keep getting an error message saying I must wait 9999 seconds between posts, so I'll post my reply to your challenge here for the time being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog

Ah, I've been called out - OK I'll prepare my weak case, and put 50.00 USD on it, care to match it?

I gladly accept your debate challange but I don't know how we're soppose to decide the who the winner of the debate will be. I see two options; A. one of us concedes our position, very unlikely or B. we have a public vote on the winner, which will be heavily biased in your favour because you have a legion of kiddy followers who don't miss any opportunity to kiss your ass and most people have biased opinions on this subject which will skew the results of the vote. I see no fair way of picking a winner in the debate, therefore, I won't be putting any money on it.

Also, if you are challenging me to a formal debate, which I assume you are, we need to agree upon some ground rules first. Like who goes first, the number of rounds, the maximum length of the statements, the time limit between each round and set of statements, and the starting date of the debate. After we get those settled we can begin the debate. I'm going out of town tomorrow and won't be online for at least a day but when I get back we can figure out the ground rules. In the meantime, I suggest you get to work on your opening statement.

DavidfromTexas · 04-24-2006, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

I'm debating with someone about a historical Jesus and here was my opening statement. Remember, this is a small forum with only a few hundred active posters, so I kept it as short as possible and I'm just an amatuer. I'd appreciate any criticism.

---------

Even if Josephus did refer to Jesus two times in his "Antiqueties of the Jews," written in the 90s Ce, he isn't an eye witness to Jesus Christ and could just be repeating hearsay of early Christians about a founder of their religion. At best, ignoring the problem of its authenticity, it's a historical maybe.

"as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources"

There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.

Can you cite any non-biblical writing FROM Palestine that is dated earlier than 100 CE in which the writer mentions ANY person living in Palestine at the time of Christ?

Quote:

So far Jesus Christ is at best a historical maybe with-out using the Bible to prove he existed.

But I'll have to use the biblical record if I want to talk about an HJ. So let's look at the Bible's record of Jesus Christ. Its not much better than the non-biblical record. There is no biblical eye witness to a human Jesus either...

???

If the above is true, then how do you explain the following?

Quote:

John 21:20-24 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

The writer of the gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness.

Quote:

Hmm? Paul and all first century writer's of the Bible saw Jesus only through visions and never with their own eyes...

False.

Peter and James saw Jesus in the flesh, not only in visions. Both of them were biblical authors.

Quote:

Wonder why that was? Paul, and all first century epistles, never mention a "Jesus of Nazareth," his birth place, his parents, any of the twelve apostles,

False.

Paul mentions the apostle Peter and the apostle James. It should be no surprise that Paul did not dwell on the twelve apostles because that was not his mission. Paul wrote the following regarding the apostles...

Quote:

Galatians 1:15-22 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Quote:

Calvary hill,

Except for one English translation, all other translations mention "Calvary" only once... and the writer was Luke. Since Luke only mentions Calvary once, should not he have also mentioned it in the book of Acts? What about the other NT writers such as Peter, James, and Jude? Why not hold all of the other writers of the New Testament to the same standard?

You criticisms of Paul are not justified.

Quote:

or the empty tomb and only talk about a divine being Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour) who is revealed to them through revelations with God... Maybe it's because they never heard of "Jesus of Nazareth"??

Maybe because it was no longer necessary to refer to Him as Jesus of Nazareth... especially considering that Christ was in HEAVEN at that time seated at the right hand of the Father! The term Jesus of Nazareth was used in describing events of the life of Jesus during His ministry on earth. The writings of Paul mainly deal with the Risen Lord... The writers of the Gospels, on the other hand, mainly deal with the events prior to the Resurrection.

Quote:

The Gospels, with the first mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," were written, at the earliest starting around 70CE, about 40 years after the human Jesus was sopposedly crucified...

And your proof of when the gospels were written is based upon what???

Do you have any hard evidence, or are you relying upon faulty scholars who don't have any hard evidence either?

Quote:

Not one author of the NT is an eye-witness.

False.

Please see above.

Quote:

Not to mention that to this day they can't find the empty tomb where Jesus was resurrected. Nor do they have any physical evidence of a human Jesus, no clothing or any other artifact from his life. Pieces of the true cross never even started to appear until after 200 CE.

Would an empty tomb convince really you of the truth of the gospel?

What kind of "physical evidence" would be convincing to you of a "human Jesus"?

What in the world are you talking about regarding "pieces of the true cross" appearing until after 200 CE?

Quote:

Where's Jesus?

In heaven!

Jesus Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

BTW... I hope and pray that the person you are debating corrects you on the errors pointed out above...

Boro Nut · 04-24-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

The writer of the gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness. This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things...

Christians don't use the words truth and witness like the rest of us do, and anyway, 'bearing witness' doesn’t mean you actually saw an event.

And what event are modern evangelicals witnessing? Don't they witness too? Aren't they told to go out and witness? Do they mean witless? It's awful to think, but you may have to consider the possibility you’ve wasted 2000 years just because someone once had a speech impediment.

Boro Nut

jjramsey · 04-24-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Josephus referred to Jesus twice in his “Antiquities of the Jews,” written in the 90s CE, but the passages are very dubious and show clear signs of tampering. In fact, the first reference is so Christian, that it is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" because of its gospel-like message. Take a look at perhaps the best survey of the passages done by Peter Kirby at EarlyChristianWritings.com. He examines both passages and the evidences for and against their authenticity. He concludes that first reference is spurious and the second contains an interpolation.

From Peter Kirby's conclusion,

Quote:

The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I was inclined to regard both references as spurious. But now that I have found evidence that the reference in 20.9.1 does not require an earlier reference to Jesus, I am presently persuaded to regard the shorter reference as authentic. [emphasis mine]

I think that you must have either been referencing an older version of Kirby's document, or misunderstanding the current one, because he does not conclude now that "that first reference is spurious and the second contains an interpolation."

BTW, I suggest reading the thread, Historical inquiry and the art of fly shit removal.

Boro Nut · 04-24-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Jesus Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

What other properties of heaven can you tell us other than it has a left and right hand side. Is there an up or down? Which way is North? What if god scratches his left ear with his right hand? Where does Jesus sit then?

Boro Nut

tdcanam · 04-24-2006, 06:02 AM

Where are you getting your info from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

I'm debating with someone about a historical Jesus and here was my opening statement. Remember, this is a small forum with only a few hundred active posters, so I kept it as short as possible and I'm just an amatuer. I'd appreciate any criticism.

---------

Even if Josephus did refer to Jesus two times in his "Antiqueties of the Jews," written in the 90s Ce, he isn't an eye witness to Jesus Christ and could just be repeating hearsay of early Christians about a founder of their religion. At best, ignoring the problem of its authenticity, it's a historical maybe.

"as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources"

There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.

<snip cut and paste stolen from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html >

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

So far Jesus Christ is at best a historical maybe with-out using the Bible to prove he existed.

But I'll have to use the biblical record if I want to talk about an HJ. So let's look at the Bible's record of Jesus Christ. Its not much better than the non-biblical record. There is no biblical eye witness to a human Jesus either... Hmm? Paul and all first century writer's of the Bible saw Jesus only through visions and never with their own eyes... Wonder why that was? Paul, and all first century epistles, never mention a "Jesus of Nazareth," his birth place, his parents, any of the twelve apostles, Calvary hill, or the empty tomb and only talk about a divine being Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour) who is revealed to them through revelations with God... Maybe it's because they never heard of "Jesus of Nazareth"?? The Gospels, with the first mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," were written, at the earliest starting around 70CE, about 40 years after the human Jesus was sopposedly crucified...

Luke's gospel has been dated around A.D. 58 and 60. Matthew and Mark's have been dated 67-68. Peter was dated around A.D. 60. These men lived with Jesus. Why did they have to act as scribes and write everything down the day it happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Not one author of the NT is an eye-witness. Not to mention that to this day they can't find the empty tomb where Jesus was resurrected. Nor do they have any physical evidence of a human Jesus, no clothing or any other artifact from his life. Pieces of the true cross never even started to appear until after 200 CE.

Peter was an eye witness and wrote 2 books in the NT. Matthew and John where eye witnesses of Jesus.

Vorkosigan · 04-24-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Can you cite any non-biblical writing FROM Palestine that is dated earlier than 100 CE in which the writer mentions ANY person living in Palestine at the time of Christ?

Is this a joke? Let's see, there's the Pilate inscription from Caesarea Maritima, ...I mean, what exactly are you looking for here?

Vorkosigan

robto · 04-24-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

The writer of the gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness.

Wrong. The author includes himself ("we") as one of those who know that "his" testimony is true. This author was not an eyewitness, and was a different person than the one who "has written these things." That is, the author of John 21 is different than the author of the rest of John. The author of John 21 is not claiming to be an eyewitness, he is claiming that the author of the rest of John was one.

But how do we know he was right about that?

tdcanam · 04-24-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Wrong. The author includes himself ("we") as one of those who know that "his" testimony is true. This author was not an eyewitness, and was a different person than the one who "has written these things." That is, the author of John 21 is different than the author of the rest of John. The author of John 21 is not claiming to be an eyewitness, he is claiming that the author of the rest of John was one.

But how do we know he was right about that?

John did not write in the first person perspective. He referred to himself as "the deciple whom Jesus loved". He probably did this (speculation with christianity in mind, not wanting to boast), out of humility.

The "we" is just out of first person context. John is John and John wrote the book. (Did you really think that John let some guy put one verse in the middle of his book?)

04-23-2006, 10:54 PM	#1
Roach Clips Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Posts: 309	Opening Statement in HJ Debate. I'm debating with someone about a historical Jesus and here was my opening statement. Remember, this is a small forum with only a few hundred active posters, so I kept it as short as possible and I'm just an amatuer. I'd appreciate any criticism. --------- Even if Josephus did refer to Jesus two times in his "Antiqueties of the Jews," written in the 90s Ce, he isn't an eye witness to Jesus Christ and could just be repeating hearsay of early Christians about a founder of their religion. At best, ignoring the problem of its authenticity, it's a historical maybe. "as well as others, that were extra-biblical sources" There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death. So far Jesus Christ is at best a historical maybe with-out using the Bible to prove he existed. But I'll have to use the biblical record if I want to talk about an HJ. So let's look at the Bible's record of Jesus Christ. Its not much better than the non-biblical record. There is no biblical eye witness to a human Jesus either... Hmm? Paul and all first century writer's of the Bible saw Jesus only through visions and never with their own eyes... Wonder why that was? Paul, and all first century epistles, never mention a "Jesus of Nazareth," his birth place, his parents, any of the twelve apostles, Calvary hill, or the empty tomb and only talk about a divine being Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour) who is revealed to them through revelations with God... Maybe it's because they never heard of "Jesus of Nazareth"?? The Gospels, with the first mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," were written, at the earliest starting around 70CE, about 40 years after the human Jesus was sopposedly crucified... Not one author of the NT is an eye-witness. Not to mention that to this day they can't find the empty tomb where Jesus was resurrected. Nor do they have any physical evidence of a human Jesus, no clothing or any other artifact from his life. Pieces of the true cross never even started to appear until after 200 CE. Where's Jesus? Was there ever a Jesus of Nazareth, a human male? Did Christianity begin with a mythological Jesus Christ (Anointed Saviour), a supernatural force revealed only through visions, and not with a historical Jesus of Nazareth, a human who lived and preached in Palestine less than 2000 years ago?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.