No historical Jesus

[guno]

Messiah claimants
List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Esmeralda]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

Let's say a person called Jesus existed. Let's say he was an incredible teacher.
Let's he had Powers to somehow cure some sick people (like televangelists today claim to have). That still doesn't make him the messiah. "Messiah" is a Jewish term and prophecy and every Jewish scholar I've read said the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah has no corroboration in their scriptures, the OT. The story of Christ in the NT in no way matches the Jewish description or prophecies so the validity of "the Christ" of Christian myth as the Messiah is in truth devastatingly diminished. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as "divine" is gravely damaged and questionable as him being the Messiah is a large part of the story that led to his deification.

In the same way, the validity of Judaism, or any religion based in a belief in a god or gods, is 'gravely damaged' and 'devastatingly diminished' as there is no basis in the belief there is a god. This is just silly, trying to undermine another religion when your own is completely faith based. You are living in a glass house and throwing stones.

 

[HaShev]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

You are lying, you showed testimony of a christ not of Jesus and you ignored your error.
You also used Josephus as reference even though it's proven to be a later forgery.
There were many christs so tell us which historical figure are you calling Jesus?
If he was historical then you'd have no problem
giving us a Hebrew name, a birthdate, a profession,
era he lived in, height, age he lived till, method of punishment used, and historical person from his era.
Get your popcorn ready people, this is gonna be entertaining.

 

[Indeependent]

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

Malcolm X...very poor quality example.

Better example: Rudy Giuliani stating on his first day at Gracie Mansion "Al Sharpton is not welcome at City Hall".

 

[Indeependent]

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

My intention was to question the validity of some scholarly work, not the existence or non existence of Jesus.
I am neutral on the subject.

Validity of evidence is what proof is all about. Now imagine I am a primitive king of a tribe in Africa. I believe in the Gods and have no knowledge of science. You are assigned the task of explaining to me why rain happens. I am ignorant of the physical sciences you try to explain with. Your "evidence" is not validated with me and therefore, can't convince me my Rain God isn't real. You can 'explain' until you're blue in the face, I will never understand until I can find your evidence valid.

The same applies here in reverse. You are unwilling to accept evidence from scholars because you believe their information is biased based on their religious faith. You cannot find the evidence valid. That doesn't meant the evidence isn't valid.

That is a rather Aristotelian view of evidence in light of today's technology.
We are no longer living in the "Greek School of Thought".
The evidence is not defamed, it is stored like a precious jewel in a documented chain of custody until technology enables it to become valid within the stated context.

 

[HaShev]

Messiah claimants
List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why I hate wikipedia, it's always innacurate and riddled with influence and preferences of it's
moderators.
That list is missing all the main Christ figures of the
100bc to 45 ad era including the ones even the NT makes references to and Josephus mentioned and instead combine them into the fictitious Jesus.
The Morons can't have Jesus of the AD era whrn they claimed him in the time of Herod and Lysanias (who died on 35bc). Also the widows mite coin (in the acct)was a Jannaeus Alexander coin where The christ they left out Yeshu so of Mary existed in the 100bc era. Epic Fail thst list.

The many christs
Yeshu son of Mary 100bc
Yehuda ben Tabbai 100bc
The following are the only messianic figures in the
time of Lysanias and King Herod.
Yehuda (Judas) son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
Yehuda (Judas) the Galilean (6 CE)
The only Ad era at that time was
Theudas by the Jordan(45ad)
Benjamin the Egyptian was a christ figure but I don't recall his era.

 

[Indeependent]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

I understand quite well that Christianity is a Faith Based, and not a behavior based religion like Judaism and thus Christians are far more subjective in the discussion than Jews.
I have already stated quite explicitly that I cannot prove, via evidence, other than the Scriptures lift behind, that I can even prove that King Solomon was a historical figure.
I cannot stick the pre-Talmudic Artscroll Catalog in your face and claim anything objective.
Your evidence, for the time being, is below par.
You evidence is not evidence.

 

[Indeependent]

As a matter of fact, there were several guys named Jesus preaching around the same time. Maybe the bible is talking about the wrong one?

i don't know that that's true... but there were an awful lot calling themselves messiah who thought they could liberate jerusalem. those guys suffered the same fate as the person known as jesus.

Apparently, the name Yeshua, though always a rare name, especially given the advent of "Saint Paul", does appear in the Talmud at several different time periods prior to circa 4 BCE.

 

[Indeependent]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

You have to work on the ad hominem thing.
You attended a University and should be able to present evidence objectively.

 

[Fishlore]

Although it seems to defy common sense, the terms "real," "true," and "historical" haven't always meant what they mean today. To the modern mind, the crucial question about the story of Jesus is, "is it real?' meaning, "is it historical in the same way that, for example, the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan is historical?"

To modern minds, what is "real" is something that can be detected by the senses and understood through logical analysis or the scientific method. Although this definition of "real" has its advantages, it is a relatively recent one. Its roots go back no further than the 17th century.

The people who wrote the Gospels and related documents did not understand "real" in the same way. Sensory information was well understood to be limited and prone to error. "Truth" and "reality" were considered as things existing outside of human perception and awareness. The test for truth was not so much that it made sense in terms of everyday experience but that it formed part of the Ideal of truth which exists outside of space, time and human perception.

History, especially religious histories such as the story of Jesus, were not considered to be primarily a matter of fact but rather of meaning. It is the meaning of the story, its function as a guide to the invisible world of truth that created, spread and prioritized the the story of Jesus.

The various difference and even contradictions between the four Gospels and the inconsistencies in Epistles and Acts were never considered until recently a sign that the story of Jesus was not "true." Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter were seen a bit as we might regard half a dozen audience members who heard the same symphonic concert and then came outside to tell us about it.

The story of Jesus does not meet the modern standards for history but that judgement is a bit unfair or misleading because those standards did not exist when the story was created and none of the authors was trying to do what we assume they must have been trying to do.

 

[Thunderbird]

The Jesus birthers are good for a laugh - just some people desperate to sell books. They offer nonsense from non-scholars.

Did Jesus Exist?

 

[HaShev]

The Jesus birthers are good for a laugh - just some people desperate to sell books. They offer nonsense from non-scholars.

Did Jesus Exist?

Do you ever self reflect what you write?
Here's a mirror, now use this on Preachers and the Church which sold the icon.
they were just ( quote); "some people desperate to sell books. They offer nonsense from non-scholars."

 

[Boss]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

Let's say a person called Jesus existed. Let's say he was an incredible teacher.
Let's he had Powers to somehow cure some sick people (like televangelists today claim to have). That still doesn't make him the messiah. "Messiah" is a Jewish term and prophecy and every Jewish scholar I've read said the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah has no corroboration in their scriptures, the OT. The story of Christ in the NT in no way matches the Jewish description or prophecies so the validity of "the Christ" of Christian myth as the Messiah is in truth devastatingly diminished. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as "divine" is gravely damaged and questionable as him being the Messiah is a large part of the story that led to his deification.

Well, I can't comment on whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. I don't subscribe to that belief but a lot of people do. This argument is over whether or not a man named Jesus existed. The scholars and experts have no trouble proving that he did exist. In fact, they've even done research to confirm the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, down to the positioning of Jupiter in the night sky, which guided the "wise men" on their journey, probably from Persia.

So are all the experts and scholars wrong? Well, that is a possibility. I don't think it's a very good possibility, but it is still possible. It's an invalid argument to say Jesus didn't exist because we can't find any "proof" that satisfies our minds.

I have a great grandparent who was Cherokee. She changed her name to "Sarah" and married my great grandfather who was Black Dutch. Back then, Black Dutch people were people who were trying to escape their lineage. Mine were German peasantry who escaped persecution and fled to the Black Forrest and eventually came to America. They were the original "Black Dutch" people and later, Jamaicans and Hatians and even some native Americans would use the term as their lineage. I'm telling this story for a reason, bear with me...

Now... let's say we jump ahead in time 2k years.. do you think someone might have a problem confirming that "Sarah" existed? I may have written books about her from accounts others told me... I never met her myself but I knew people who had. Well, in 2k years, when trying to confirm that she existed, why would you dismiss my books? Why would you try to dismiss scholars of Cherokee history or Black Dutch history? As you can see, it gets to be problematic proving Sarah existed, especially if you are going to dismiss credible evidence.

 

[shimon]

i beg to disagree some people have recorded their lineages and they go back thousands of years even further back then two thousand years...If Jesus was so important and he exsisted then those people would have kept records as well....The stories are embellishments, fables and a mish mash of conjecture...Even the gospels contradict each other...No at the best it is a tale tale at the most it is a bald faced lie and it has become accepted as truth even though there is no proof whatsoever...Regardless people just accept it either because they have group pride and affiliation or they are brainwashed or they are just too lazy to figure things out for themselves....

 

[Boss]

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

My intention was to question the validity of some scholarly work, not the existence or non existence of Jesus.
I am neutral on the subject.

Validity of evidence is what proof is all about. Now imagine I am a primitive king of a tribe in Africa. I believe in the Gods and have no knowledge of science. You are assigned the task of explaining to me why rain happens. I am ignorant of the physical sciences you try to explain with. Your "evidence" is not validated with me and therefore, can't convince me my Rain God isn't real. You can 'explain' until you're blue in the face, I will never understand until I can find your evidence valid.

The same applies here in reverse. You are unwilling to accept evidence from scholars because you believe their information is biased based on their religious faith. You cannot find the evidence valid. That doesn't meant the evidence isn't valid.

That is a rather Aristotelian view of evidence in light of today's technology.
We are no longer living in the "Greek School of Thought".
The evidence is not defamed, it is stored like a precious jewel in a documented chain of custody until technology enables it to become valid within the stated context.

Sorry to wax Aristotelian but technology doesn't enable validity. Validity is a conclusion of faith. You simply put your faith in technology. Keep in mind, technology once used leaches to cure illness. Native Americans are called Indians because technology said Columbus had sailed around the world. Faith in technology can make you go out and pay $1000 for a Beta VCR that will be obsolete in 5 years. Or cremate astronauts alive on the launch pad.

My problem with you the approach. You want someone to prove Jesus existed without using any of the relevant evidence available from the people who are knowledgeable of it. I can literally disbelieve ANYTHING if I can dismiss expert evidence. The criteria makes it impossible to prove Jesus existed to you.

 

[Alex.]

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

You are lying, you showed testimony of a christ not of Jesus and you ignored your error.
You also used Josephus as reference even though it's proven to be a later forgery.
There were many christs so tell us which historical figure are you calling Jesus?
If he was historical then you'd have no problem
giving us a Hebrew name, a birthdate, a profession,
era he lived in, height, age he lived till, method of punishment used, and historical person from his era.
Get your popcorn ready people, this is gonna be entertaining.

Nope I stand by all my offers showing there was a historical Jesus all of which have been vetted by "qualified" experts and educators in that field. Read the accompanying links for any further information you need.

 

[Boss]

i beg to disagree some people have recorded their lineages and they go back thousands of years even further back then two thousand years...If Jesus was so important and he exsisted then those people would have kept records as well....The stories are embellishments, fables and a mish mash of conjecture...Even the gospels contradict each other...No at the best it is a tale tale at the most it is a bald faced lie and it has become accepted as truth even though there is no proof whatsoever...Regardless people just accept it either because they have group pride and affiliation or they are brainwashed or they are just too lazy to figure things out for themselves....

They DID keep records! It's mostly the New Testament now! But there is a video on YouTube from a guy who presents non-religious evidence of Jesus' existence. People have written books about it as well... all of this is being dismissed.

I'm not here to defend the Gospels, this debate is strictly over whether or not Jesus existed. Your own common sense should tell you that he must have. How in the hell could someone who never existed, have been so widely written about in such detail and have such a profound effect on humanity for 2,000 years? In the past, there have always been skeptics of whether Jesus was the Messiah or could do miracles... but the notion of Jesus not existing is relatively new and it comes about because we're now 2,000 years removed from the time.

 

[Alex.]

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

You have to work on the ad hominem thing.
You attended a University and should be able to present evidence objectively.

I have regarding the OP and analysis of who and what you are and how that skews your POV regarding the OP is spot on.

 

[Alex.]

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

I understand quite well that Christianity is a Faith Based, and not a behavior based religion like Judaism and thus Christians are far more subjective in the discussion than Jews.
I have already stated quite explicitly that I cannot prove, via evidence, other than the Scriptures lift behind, that I can even prove that King Solomon was a historical figure.
I cannot stick the pre-Talmudic Artscroll Catalog in your face and claim anything objective.
Your evidence, for the time being, is below par.
You evidence is not evidence.

My evidence is not only widely accepted it is the standard by which the OP is measured. You just have a problem when a person disagrees with you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

Love your neighbor as yourself is verbatim from Torah and may predate Confucious. Jesus didn't teach the Gospels, guess why? He taught his faith, Judaism.


Love and Brotherhood

26. To love all human beings who are of the covenant (Lev. 19:18) (CCA60). See Love and Brotherhood.
27. Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16) (CCN82). See Love and Brotherhood.
28. Not to wrong any one in speech (Lev. 25:17) (CCN48). See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.
29. Not to carry tales (Lev. 19:16) (CCN77). See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.
30. Not to cherish hatred in one's heart (Lev. 19:17) (CCN78). See Love and Brotherhood.
31. Not to take revenge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN80).
32. Not to bear a grudge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN81).
33. Not to put any Jew to shame (Lev. 19:17) (CCN79).
34. Not to curse any other Israelite (Lev. 19:14) (by implication: if you may not curse those who cannot hear, you certainly may not curse those who can) (CCN45).
35. Not to give occasion to the simple-minded to stumble on the road (Lev. 19:14) (this includes doing anything that will cause another to sin) (CCN76).
36. To rebuke the sinner (Lev. 19:17) (CCA72).
37. To relieve a neighbor of his burden and help to unload his beast (Ex. 23:5) (CCA70). See Love and Brotherhood.
38. To assist in replacing the load upon a neighbor's beast (Deut. 22:4) (CCA71). See Love and Brotherhood.
39. Not to leave a beast, that has fallen down beneath its burden, unaided (Deut. 22:4) (CCN183). See Love and Brotherhood.
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Those aren't verbatim btw.