Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 02-02-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What would be the nail in the coffin for Jesus historicity?

I was thinking about this, and I think that the thing that would certainly do the most damage would be irrefutable evidence of writings about "Jesus Christ" from before the 1st century CE.

IMHO, the only thing that is relevant, is that those who use all form of argument to 'prove' Jesus existed, can not tell you even one salient fact of his life that is backed up by any reasonable evidence.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more than just 'parsimony' as an answer to why someone thinks he was a first century wandering preacher, or a rebel rouser, or whatever. We can not pin down even one single verifiable fact about his life, yet it is insisted he did actually exist nonetheless.

I'm not asking for much. Just tell me when he lived (was he the Essene TOR, John the Baptist, Julius Caesar...), or what he did for a living (wandering snake oil salesman, carpenter, court official, rebel leader...), and back it up with more than just speculation or other crap, and I'd be willing to conceed he at least actually existed.

Until then, he sounds like any other legendary figure.

Steve Weiss · 02-03-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

IMHO, the only thing that is relevant, is that those who use all form of argument to 'prove' Jesus existed, can not tell you even one salient fact of his life that is backed up by any reasonable evidence.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more than just 'parsimony' as an answer to why someone thinks he was a first century wandering preacher, or a rebel rouser, or whatever. We can not pin down even one single verifiable fact about his life, yet it is insisted he did actually exist nonetheless.

I'm not asking for much. Just tell me when he lived (was he the Essene TOR, John the Baptist, Julius Caesar...), or what he did for a living (wandering snake oil salesman, carpenter, court official, rebel leader...), and back it up with more than just speculation or other crap, and I'd be willing to conceed he at least actually existed.

Until then, he sounds like any other legendary figure.

Not only is Jesus a fictional character, but so is Moses, Jonah, Noah, the disciples and virtually every religious actor in the bible. There is mention of actual people in order to give a credibility to the bible that it doesn't deserve, but that is part of the deception. Miracle upon miracle, wild story after wild story, lies after lies, that is the bible, and to debate its contents is to be taken in by it.

I am reminded of the movie "Forest Gump" in which Gump is seen in several scenes meeting a number of U.S. Presidents. Ignorant, uninformed viewers may actually believe that Tom Hanks has met these dead leaders because they have seen it with their own eyes, but we know better, don't we? Just a slightly critical mind will reject the folklore that passes for sacred books. These books are held out as sacred in order to avoid questioning of obvious nonsense. A wake up call is long overdo.

andrewcriddle · 02-03-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Here's my source ("The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy), p. 166-168.

'At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one might call him a man. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the holy prophets had foretold this and myriads of other marvels concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has to this day still not disappeared.'

"Josephus also tells us that when the 'miracle worker' was brought before Pilate, he concluded that Jesus was 'a benefactor, not a criminal, or agitator, or a would-be king.' Josephus relates that as Jesus had miraculously cured Pilate's wife of a sickness, Pilate let him go. However, the Jewish priests later bribed Pilate to allow them to crucify Jesus 'in defiance of all Jewish tradition.' As for the resurrection, he tells us that Jesus' dead body could not have been stolen by his disciples, which was a common argument advanced against Christian claims that Jesus miraculously resurrected, since 'guards were posted around his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews'!

FWIW the first passage referred to above is the standard TF found in all known manuscripts of the Antiquities and thought by most scholars to have an authentic core.

The second passage refers to an expanded version of the TF found in the medieval Slavonic version of the Jewish Wars and regarded by almost all scholars as entirely spurious.

Andrew Criddle

Steve Weiss · 02-03-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW the first passage referred to above is the standard TF found in all known manuscripts of the Antiquities and thought by most scholars to have an authentic core.

The second passage refers to an expanded version of the TF found in the medieval Slavonic version of the Jewish Wars and regarded by almost all scholars as entirely spurious.

Andrew Criddle

Since the bible is a fictional work and there is no evidence for the existence of a biblical Jesus, it really doesn't matter who said what about it. Lacking eyewitnesses to events, all we have is rumors and hearsay observations. Oral testimony isn't worth the paper it is written on. Even contemporary, on the spot reporters often get their facts wrong, so relying upon anonymous works containing known forgeries of ancient origin that have undergone numerous translations is beyond consideration. It doesn't matter what Josephus or others may have said or had attributed to them, the Christian enterprise is based upon myth and manipulation as was the Old Testament before it.

Johann_Kaspar · 02-03-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW the first passage referred to above is the standard TF found in all known manuscripts of the Antiquities and thought by most scholars to have an authentic core.

The second passage refers to an expanded version of the TF found in the medieval Slavonic version of the Jewish Wars and regarded by almost all scholars as entirely spurious.

Andrew Criddle

Funny, but the reverse could just be quite interesting to contemplate.

All manuscripts... well, of course, because "all" are copies from one, and a late one.

"Almost all scholars" are xian or with an xian mentality. It is enough to see that HERE the TF is discussed in several threads, while the slavonic... well try to find evn one thread (or am I mistaken?)...

"entirely spurious", of course, the "authentic core" here, if any, could be much more embarrasing for xians.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.