Solitary Man

Until it stops being true? :huh:

angelo

But surely if there was a wild preacher named Jesus around that time, who drew so much attention to himself, as stated in the gospels, there surely would be references to him somewhere. The D.S.C make no reference to him at all. All other writers of the time that he was supposed to have lived, and there were a considerable number of them, also make no mention of the man. That is a very considerable amount of evidence in anybodies book for Jesus not having any existence. Not the biblical one anyway.

angelo

[QUOTE=aa5874;5143613] Just like the Phantom. He also didn't want anyone to know who he was. He walked into a bar and ordered milk for himself and his pet wolf Devil, as Mr Walker. God I used to love that comic. [The man who cannot die]

jjramsey

You are shifting the goalposts. The OP was about whether Jesus had actually existed, not whether his portrayal in the Bible is accurate. Also, mena_sana is "Agnostic leaning toward atheist, realist, naturalist." Why expect mena_sana to even want to demonstrate that Jesus was as he was portrayed in the Bible?

Phat Infidel

Its all a matter of belief. No real proof is possible.

Even if Jesus is just a mythical legend, the message is quite sound.

spin

Nothing sure about the claims which make up your argument. You are merely repeating the same logical error: lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Was Robin Hood a real figure? Was Arthur of Camelot (or wherever it was) a real figure?

You mightn't believe what the press says about him, but is that sufficient to allow you to claim he didn't exist? Obviously not. What's worse is that you put yourself into the position of assuming the burden of proof. After all you claim he doesn't exist, so what evidence do you have that he doesn't exist? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Do you see your problem?

Christians claim he existed. So they have the burden of proof to demonstrate the case. Isn't it wiser to let them do the hard work for no reward than to put yourself in to do just as hard work for just as little reward?


spin

aa5874

There is no shifting of the goalposts at all. The OP is about Jesus of the Bible. The Bible portrayed Jesus fundamentally as a person who was or believed to be the son of the God of the Jews, was born or believed to have been born as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, was or believed to be the Christ, was or believed to be the Messiah, healed or believed to have healed the sick miraculously, raised or believed to have raised people from the dead, had thousands of followers, was crucified or believed to have been crucified, during the days of Pilate, was resurrected or believed to have been himself raised from the dead and finally ascended or was believed to have ascended into heaven.

The OP is about the Jesus as described in the Bible, that is the primary source and the Church fathers agreed with the Biblical description of Jesus.

However, there are no known credible non-apologetic historical accounts of the Biblical Jesus, anywhere. If mens_sana claimed the Biblical Jesus was human, he must produce some credible historical account of the Biblical Jesus.

Just claiming that the Biblical Jesus was most likely human without any factual or historical support is a total waste of time. Imagination or faith have no place in this debate.

I cannot find any historical support for an actual human being who was or believed to be the Biblical Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. And if anyone claims that the Biblical Jesus was human, just produce your history of him.

jjramsey

Oh, please. The OP was put up by ApostateAbe, who is pretty clearly not presuming that Jesus was all that the Christians said he was.

aa5874

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack? What is that?

It has been erroneously claimed that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but that statement is completely mis-leadinag and flawed.
The true statement is "Absence of evidence is NOT ALWAYS evidence of absence."

And all entities considered non-existent have no evidence, like Achilles, Jesus of Nazareth, Apollo, Allah, Zeus, the God of the Jews and Vishnu.

No evidence is the ultimate proof of non-existence.

aa5874

It's all a matter of evidence or information. There is no credible non-apologetic information about Jesus of Nazareth anywhere, and I interpret that void as a reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, and I think that is reasonable.

On the other hand belief alone implies that you have no regard for evidence or information, whether or not your belief is supported, you will continue to maintain your belief.

And the message is not sound at all, if it were the authors who fabricated Jesus, then it would have been far better for them to have said so.