Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

Were they now?

Totally were. Heard it from a fella.

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Totally were. Heard it from a fella.

Was this fella an eye witness?
What was his name?
Who were his people?
Why did he tell you?
When did he tell you?
Where were you when he told you?
What is his occupation?
What day is it?





oh...nearly forgot...have you a linky???

:pac:

Frank Lee Midere

If banishide really believes that Jesus didn't exist she's on the same level of argument as the Shakespeare didn't exist crowd.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

If banishide really believes that Jesus didn't exist she's on the same level of argument as the Shakespeare didn't exist crowd.

Not really.
Shakespeare has apparently written a lot of stuff. Jesus, the divine lord God, didn't even write a single word. Or if He did there's no record of it. It seems odd given that he was a deity and all that he didn't see fit to write anything down.

Pherekydes

Jernal wrote: »

Not really.
Shakespeare has apparently written a lot of stuff. Jesus, the divine lord God, didn't even write a single word. Or if He did there's no record of it. It seems odd given that he was a deity and all that he didn't see fit to write anything down.

He wrote in the dirt that one time.

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

If banishide really believes that Jesus didn't exist she's on the same level of argument as the Shakespeare didn't exist crowd.

Bannasidhe -please note spelling - never said Jesus didn't exist - Bannasidhe said there was no evidence so it impossible to state with absolute certainty as people have attempted to do. Is that too subtle a distinction?

There certainly was a William Shakespeare - he left his second best bed to his wife in his will.

Here is an image of that will written in his own fair hand

Frank Lee Midere

Jernal wrote: »

Not really.
Shakespeare has apparently written a lot of stuff. Jesus, the divine lord God, didn't even write a single word. Or if He did there's no record of it. It seems odd given that he was a deity and all that he didn't see fit to write anything down.

Not much of an argument since nobody is claiming he was divine. Nor is the fact that somebody hasn't written something disprove his historicity. There are no extant writings by Pilate as far as I know.

Plus the anti-stratfordians deny that Shakespeare wrote that stuff. That's their point.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

oh...nearly forgot...have you a linky???

:pac:

http://translate.google.ie/#la/en/

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

http://translate.google.ie/#la/en/

*chuckle*

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Not much of an argument since nobody is claiming he was divine. Nor is the fact that somebody hasn't written something disprove his historicity. There are no extant writings by Pilate as far as I know.

Plus the anti-stratfordians deny that Shakespeare wrote that stuff. That's their point.

Jesus or Shakespeare?

Frank Lee Midere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bannasidhe -please note spelling - never said Jesus didn't exist - Bannasidhe said there was no evidence so it impossible to state with absolute certainty as people have attempted to do. Is that too subtle a distinction?

There certainly was a William Shakespeare - he left his second best bed to his wife in his will.

Here is an image of that will written in his own fair hand

I think we could state with about 99% probability that Jesus did exist. I'll write a longer post on why this is the case when not on a phone. What the deniers of Jesus and Shaksepare as author have in common is no decent counter story. ( the anti stratfordians say that Shakespeare existed but there is no proof he wrote the plays because very few contemporary sources - sound familiar? -- say he did). But when it comes to who did they are all at sea. You could drive a train through their arguments. The non-existence of Jesus adherents don't even bother to come up with alternatives; however religions don't spontaneously come into existence. That's magic thinking.

m4smith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bannasidhe -please note spelling - never said Jesus didn't exist - Bannasidhe said there was no evidence so it impossible to state with absolute certainty as people have attempted to do. Is that too subtle a distinction?

There certainly was a William Shakespeare - he left his second best bed to his wife in his will.

Here is an image of that will written in his own fair hand

The wealth of evidence is in favour that Jesus did exist, It simply would not fit with the thinking of the time to "Invent" a person like Jesus. Now that does not mean that the Jesus of the Bible is the same Jesus that existed, However from the many sources of information we know that he did exist. The burden of proof we have invented over the last 300 years would not have even been thought of 2000 years ago. I think going down the route of trying to prove that he did not exists is pointless. The debate is rather around who exactly he was.

endacl

m4smith wrote: »

The wealth of evidence is in favour that Jesus did exist, It simply would not fit with the thinking of the time to "Invent" a person like Jesus. Now that does not mean that the Jesus of the Bible is the same Jesus that existed, However from the many sources of information we know that he did exist. The burden of proof we have invented over the last 300 years would not have even been thought of 2000 years ago. I think going down the route of trying to prove that he did not exists is pointless. The debate is rather around who exactly he was.

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I think we could state with about 99% probability that Jesus did exist. I'll write a longer post on why this is the case when not on a phone. What the deniers of Jesus and Shaksepare as author have in common is no decent counter story. ( the anti stratfordians say that Shakespeare existed but there is no proof he wrote the plays because very few contemporary sources - sound familiar? -- say he did). But when it comes to who did they are all at sea. You could drive a train through their arguments. The non-existence of Jesus adherents don't even bother to come up with alternatives; however religions don't spontaneously come into existence. That's magic thinking.

The difference being no one, to my knowledge, has ever been tortured and murdered others for questioning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

If one is using Jesus' existence to claim justification for murder, torture and generally telling people how to live their lives a modicum of proof for Jesus' existence is not too much to ask for IMHO.

By the way - I have to assume since you stated I said Jesus did not exist that you didn't bother to actually read all of my posts as I said no such thing.

m4smith

endacl wrote: »

Is this serious discussion?

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

The wealth of evidence is in favour that Jesus did exist, It simply would not fit with the thinking of the time to "Invent" a person like Jesus. Now that does not mean that the Jesus of the Bible is the same Jesus that existed, However from the many sources of information we know that he did exist. The burden of proof we have invented over the last 300 years would not have even been thought of 2000 years ago. I think going down the route of trying to prove that he did not exists is pointless. The debate is rather around who exactly he was.

Wealth of evidence says that there were Christians in the 1 st AD who were followers of Jesus - that is not the same as evidence for Jesus.

Nor is this wealth of evidence proof that the Jesus they followed was an accurate portrayal of what (allegedly) alive Jesus was like.

m4smith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The difference being no one, to my knowledge, has ever been tortured and murdered others for questioning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

If one is using Jesus' existence to claim justification for murder, torture and generally telling people how to live their lives a modicum of proof for Jesus' existence is not too much to ask for IMHO.

By the way - I have to assume since you stated I said Jesus did not exist that you didn't bother to actually read all of my posts as I said no such thing.

How do you jump from the existence of Jesus to Justification for murder? Many people have used THEIR views of Jesus to Justify their position of various issues. If you were to take just his quotes from the Gospels there is not much there to justify Murder and torture.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

Is this serious discussion?

We tried that - but some people were having problems understanding concepts like 'primary sources', 'contemporary' and 'evidence' so we decided to chat amongst ourselves while they wrestled with the unfamiliar world of empiricism.

m4smith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wealth of evidence says that there were Christians in the 1 st AD who were followers of Jesus - that is not the same as evidence for Jesus.

Nor is this wealth of evidence proof that the Jesus they followed was an accurate portrayal of what (allegedly) alive Jesus was like.

Correct. We can't use the Bible literally to say that was exactly who Jesus was, But the evidence is heavily in favour of the fact he did exist. It simply would not fit the thinking of the day to invent him. It would be the same as saying Buddha did not exist.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

How do you jump from the existence of Jesus to Justification for murder? Many people have used THEIR views of Jesus to Justify their position of various issues. If you were to take just his quotes from the Gospels there is not much there to justify Murder and torture.

No squirming out of it.

Christianity - a religion which would not exist without the belief in the existence of Jesus - launched Crusades, Auto-de-Fé's, witch trials etc etc etc against those who refused to believe in Jesus.

Argue the theology with those who believe it is justified - not with me.

m4smith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We tried that - but some people were having problems understanding concepts like 'primary sources', 'contemporary' and 'evidence' so we decided to chat amongst ourselves while they wrestled with the unfamiliar world of empiricism.

But this is the problem. To understand Palestine of 2000 years ago you have to enter into the mind and thinking of the day.

Palestine was an occupied territory, Jesus would have come from a poor oppressed region.

Our current thinking can't be used in the same way to understand the way things were 2000 years ago. The Concepts you are using are from the last 300 years.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

Correct. We can't use the Bible literally to say that was exactly who Jesus was, But the evidence is heavily in favour of the fact he did exist. It simply would not fit the thinking of the day to invent him. It would be the same as saying Buddha did not exist.

Maybe Buddha (or Gautama Siddhartha) did exist - maybe he didn't. Either way, no one is claiming he was divine.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

But this is the problem. To understand Palestine of 2000 years ago you have to enter into the mind and thinking of the day.

Palestine was an occupied territory, Jesus would have come from a poor oppressed region.

Our current thinking can't be used in the same way to understand the way things were 2000 years ago. The Concepts you are using are from the last 300 years.

Please read the whole thread.

tallaghtmick

m4smith wrote: »

Correct. We can't use the Bible literally to say that was exactly who Jesus was, But the evidence is heavily in favour of the fact he did exist. It simply would not fit the thinking of the day to invent him. It would be the same as saying Buddha did not exist.

Or the Boogeyman.....scary bollox.

m4smith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No squirming out of it.

Christianity - a religion which would not exist without the belief in the existence of Jesus - launched Crusades, Auto-de-Fé's, witch trials etc etc etc against those who refused to believe in Jesus.

Argue the theology with those who believe it is justified - not with me.

Not going to deny anything that you say above.. But you really have to put the Crusades in the context of the day.. As I said we can't judge the way people thought centenaries ago with today's thinking.

in the mid 1930's it was kind of accepted in Europe that antisemitism was okish. Today most definitely it is not.

So getting back to the point in Question. Did the person Jesus exist and was he Crucified? yes he did exist and was Crucified, those 2 things we are sure of.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

Not going to deny anything that you say above.. But you really have to put the Crusades in the context of the day.. As I said we can't judge the way people thought centenaries ago with today's thinking.

in the mid 1930's it was kind of accepted in Europe that antisemitism was okish. Today most definitely it is not.

So getting back to the point in Question. Did the person Jesus exist and was he Crucified? yes he did exist and was Crucified, those 2 things we are sure of.

Ah yes - 'context'. Was wondering when that would pop up to say hello.

No - anti semitism was not widely acceptable in the 1930s but nice attempt at a Godwin.

How can you be sure?

Without evidence you cannot - it is as simple as that. Then it becomes a balance of probabilities issue which is not the same thing at all.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then it becomes a balance of probabilities issue which is not the same thing at all.

Which would actually put it squarely in the realm of 'opinion'. Different debate entirely.

It would in fact be a debate.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There certainly was a William Shakespeare - he left his second best bed to his wife in his will.

Who did he leave his best bed to? Sorry, that's the only burning question I have unless someone comes on with a letter from JC's Mum saying "Behold, I give you the son of god, and much good will it do you. G'luck, Mary".

m4smith

The earliest and most reliable nonbiblical reference to Jesus comes from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d. 100 C.E.).In the Antiquities, Josephus writes of a fiendish Jewish high priest named Ananus who, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, unlawfully condemned a certain “James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah,” to stoning for transgression of the law. James’s appellative was provided by his fraternal connection to someone with whom Josephus assumes his audience would be familiar.

Flavius was writing about Jesus knowing that people already knew who he was. He was actually writing about James and called him Jesus's brother.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

The earliest and most reliable nonbiblical reference to Jesus comes from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d. 100 C.E.).In the Antiquities, Josephus writes of a fiendish Jewish high priest named Ananus who, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, unlawfully condemned a certain “James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah,” to stoning for transgression of the law. James’s appellative was provided by his fraternal connection to someone with whom Josephus assumes his audience would be familiar.

Flavius was writing about Jesus knowing that people already knew who he was. He was actually writing about James and called him Jesus's brother.

I repeat - please read the whole thread.