historicity of jesus

[Master Teacher]

I can't find it now but I saw a video with a non religious historian who basically said if you claim jesus didn't exist then you'd have to remove plenty of other people from the history books as well. Evidence of any person or place from that time is scarce and full of holes.

This is supposed to be "higher learning" and we are supposed to respect the scientific or intellectual community, so why do we choose this issue to disagree with?

It's a consensus, just like the Big Bang, jesus did exist. Two events in particular are almost universally agreed on, his baptism and his crucifixion. Everything else is up for debate.

the big bang theory is called a theory for a reason

also there's proof that Seti I existed, and his reign predates Christianity, Islam, the bible, all that shyt.

This guy from Jordan who works out at the gym I go told me Islam was created by Jews to give to the Arabs, I don't know if its true but he was an arab himself fresh of the boat

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

While I think Jesus probably existed, I don't think this is an airtight argument. Considering that 3 of the 4 synoptic gospels were almost certainly copied from 1 (making them not truly synoptic at all,) there's no reason to assume that authors who came decades later were simply not getting their information from these ultimately copied texts. If there's no real corroborating power in the synoptic gospels, which must be the case if only one of them is a truly original document (making its claims impossible to bolster,) then anything based on them has no such corroborating power, either.

No one is talking about the other Gospels. Only one: Mark, written 30 years after the events. Not long enough for 'myths' to creep in and there were still witnesses alive to correct any errors. After 2,000 years, there is no evidence that contradicts it. All evidence discovered only verifies the account. Biblical and non.

If Tacitus got evidence from outside the gospels, from a source that itself was not reporting based on the gospels, then I think the case would be much clearer. But chances are, he got them from other Christians, considering that there were no documented execution records for him to look at dating back a century, and because, as he acknowledges, Christianity was already entrenched enough in the area that it had a wide following of people who would all have echoed the Jesus story as a matter of belief, even though none of them would have been alive during Jesus's time.

Tacitus' account betrays his unfavorable view of Christians so there's no reason to believe he'd bother to listen to their side, read their Gospels or pay them any mind.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So because he's in the bible and quran, that automatically makes him real? Science means to know. You say that science is one of god's tools but then in your next quote say no one(including yourself) knows what god is.

No, what makes him 'real' is the same thing that makes other figures from antiquity 'real'. I didn't say 'Science is one of 'Gzd's' tools'. If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly.

No such thing as miracles and luck. They are just words used when you don't know how something happened.

These are known as 'scientific anomalies'.

The only people coming back from the dead are the zombies Nas talked about.

And this guy......Dead man wakes up during his own autopsy | Mail Online

Nobody is curing the blind without some scientific procedure. Not simply putting a hand upon them...

ORLY?.....Blind Woman Regains Sight - ABC News​

 

[50CentStan]

the big bang theory is called a theory for a reason

also there's proof that Seti I existed, and his reign predates Christianity, Islam, the bible, all that shyt.

This guy from Jordan who works out at the gym I go told me Islam was created by Jews to give to the Arabs, I don't know if its true but he was an arab himself fresh of the boat

peace be with you, the idea that Islam was created by jews to give go Arabs is false, it's truly disgusting the lies Arab non Muslims spread because of their not being able to see the truth.

peace be with you.

 

[Chris Mauro]

And this guy......Dead man wakes up during his own autopsy | Mail Online


​

so if this random Venezuelan dude managed to come back from the dead then apparently Jesus story isn't all that unique and shouldn't be placed on a pedestal don't u think?


btw, the most logical explanation would be a premature declaration of death or that his body was in some kind of deep idle mode rather than to assume that his braincells actually died and then miraculously fixed themselves.


I know very little about the medical field but I am aware that doctors have ways of lowering the temperature of a patients body for things like open heart surgery and the like.


If this guy was placed in a morgue/freezer than that would partially explain (low pulse, appearance of death etc)




Point of what I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions bro. If you're constantly looking for miracles you'll probably find them.



But I'm not trying to change ur mind about anything, feel free to be as insane as u wanna be, just please don't kill anyone in the process.


u remind me of Nelson Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire

 

[The Real]

No one is talking about the other Gospels. Only one: Mark, written 30 years after the events. Not long enough for 'myths' to creep in and there were still witnesses alive to correct any errors. After 2,000 years, there is no evidence that contradicts it. All evidence discovered only verifies the account. Biblical and non.

Nothing that comes after that era is reliable, so the real question is, what in 2,000 years have we discovered that is contemporary with or very soon after Jesus's time? And the answer is: very little. I don't think the question of contradictory evidence is as much a closed matter as you do, both because it's very difficult to find texts from that time, period, but also because Christianity won the day, making contradictory narratives even more difficult to find. We know that, for example, during the time of Muhammad, all manner of Jewish and Christian writers wrote large texts in opposition to him, but very, very few of them remain (and that's from a time when texts were much more easily preserved than they were during the time of Jesus.)

As for witnesses correcting errors, you're assuming that Mark was written in order to be a historically-accurate document, whereas we already know that this is not a safe assumption to make when it comes to the formation of a faith-based belief system. Many of the writings during Muhammad's time, for example, already attribute to him things that simply go against science and our modern understanding of the world, and are thus not obviously historically-accurate- the myths were already creeping in while he was still alive. I'm not willing to simply accept the assumption that Mark was meant to be accurate in a historical (rather than a faith-based) sense. One story simply isn't enough to say much either way.

Tacitus' account betrays his unfavorable view of Christians so there's no reason to believe he'd bother to listen to their side, read their Gospels or pay them any mind.

What other sources would he have had? Especially since he doesn't mention them, we can only assume he is either using documents or hearsay- which is what most ancient historians used, isn't it?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Nothing that comes after that era is reliable, so the real question is, what in 2,000 years have we discovered that is contemporary with or very soon after Jesus's time? And the answer is: very little.

That is of no consequence. Contemporary authorship would solidify the case, but with multiple sources, that isn't a necessity to establish historicity of a figure.

As for witnesses correcting errors, you're assuming that Mark was written in order to be a historically-accurate document

No, I'm not assuming anything other than if there were any errors in the story, witnesses would have corrected him as they were still alive.

What other sources would he have had? Especially since he doesn't mention them, we can only assume he is either using documents or hearsay- which is what most ancient historians used, isn't it?

He more than likely used prior histories. He was a noted historian and would have stated that the story was 'hearsay' if he didn't have access to solid documentation/information.....if he didn't flat-out refuse to state it. He calls Christianity 'Exitiabilis', Latin for mischievous or evil, so I highly doubt he'd speak to anyone who professed to be a follower of the religion.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

so if this random Venezuelan dude managed to come back from the dead then apparently Jesus story isn't all that unique and shouldn't be placed on a pedestal don't u think?

Sure, because it's such a common occurrence. People come back to life all the time.

btw, the most logical explanation would be a premature declaration of death or that his body was in some kind of deep idle mode rather than to assume that his braincells actually died and then miraculously fixed themselves.

There is no evidence to support that explanation for that gentleman.

I know very little about the medical field but I am aware that doctors have ways of lowering the temperature of a patients body for things like open heart surgery and the like.

Then your prior statement is void, also, he wasn't being prepped for surgery. He was declared dead at the scene of an accident.

If this guy was placed in a morgue/freezer than that would partially explain (low pulse, appearance of death etc)

Or, he was dead.

Point of what I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions bro. If you're constantly looking for miracles you'll probably find them.

'Scientific anomalies' = 'miracles'.

But I'm not trying to change ur mind about anything, feel free to be as insane as u wanna be, just please don't kill anyone in the process.

Why would I do that? You people say some of the dumbest things sometimes.

u remind me of Nelson Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire

I have never seen the show so have no idea what you're trying to say.....nor does it matter.​

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

ORLY?.....Blind Woman Regains Sight - ABC News​

dude above broke down the guy that came back from the unconscious, I'll break down this.

when did this person regain sight? was it before or after she hit her head from falling? I know this is a little off topic since we're simply talking about if dude existed but this unseen "God" didn't say "bam, you're cured." If that's the case why not cure everybody!? And where's the evidence of this "god". If one cannot touch, taste, hear, see or smell something, it does not exist. If there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago(which again I won't say there wasn't but these "miracles" attached to him are bs), he was a man. 23 pairs of chromosomes. X and Y meaning he had a physical man father. Not a "spirit" getting mary pregnant(the hebrew word for virgin, almah simply means 'a young girl'). There is nothing special about Jesus that makes him any different than any other human on this planet. Constantine and his crew decided that they should split god into 3, each with no relation to the other in order to control the people at that time mixing christian thought with pagan customs. Why do you think these people took away from and added to the bible?

So the point I'm making is, was there man named Jesus 2000 years ago? Possibly, but like I said, the unproven miracles attached to him and a lot of other characters in the bible are bs and should not be taken on face value. Stick with the principles, he spoke the truth, and stood for freedom, justice and equality.

 

[Chris Mauro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVoT-U6Hgu8

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

i used to get caught up in this bullshyt but i find myself caring less and less about it... which is a beautiful thing, because i feel myself growing closer to TRUE freedom from religion. where it aint your concern, you just don't give a fukk. don't judge me or my "morals" cause of my spiritual beliefs and i'm skraight

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

dude above broke down the guy that came back from the unconscious, I'll break down this.

when did this person regain sight? was it before or after she hit her head from falling?

After.

I know this is a little off topic since we're simply talking about if dude existed but this unseen "God" didn't say "bam, you're cured." If that's the case why not cure everybody!? And where's the evidence of this "god". If one cannot touch, taste, hear, see or smell something, it does not exist.

You can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell morals.......but they exist. As far as 'G-d'.....I don't care. The term means nothing.

If there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago(which again I won't say there wasn't

You can't say there wasn't without getting into a lot of trouble with established history. The rest of your post is immaterial to the discussion.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Didn't watch it. The joke is lost on me and I prefer it that way. How about you actually post something pertinent to the discussion instead of trying to get a laugh or just be disruptive? If you have nothing of substance to offer, then just lurk.​

 

[Chris Mauro]

you're insane b


there's nothing to talk about.


Only lame duck nikka on here who types "G-d"


He's unknowable so I put the "-" there, nikka please. U seem to know an awfully lot about him

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

After.



You can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell morals.......but they exist. As far as 'G-d'.....I don't care. The term means nothing.



You can't say there wasn't without getting into a lot of trouble with established history. The rest of your post is immaterial to the discussion.​

You can't see and hear morals? Morals are manifested and expressed through your ways and actions and those are based on what you know and how you were taught.

Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.