No historical Jesus

[Boss]

If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?

To perhaps educate little morons like you. But it's hard because you don't want to learn. If you're going to reject the evidence from scholars who have made this their life's work, there is not a whole lot anyone can show you.

Prove to me that rain is not spiritual... and don't use any physical science to explain! You see, it's not possible... my mind is made up that rain IS spiritual, and I reject physical science evidence, so you can't ever convince me. That doesn't mean I am correct and you are a failure. It just means my mind is made up, it's closed to new possibility and you can't change it. And that's where we are with you.

 

[Alex.]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

 

[Boss]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Well... yes... usually, people who are Biblical scholars attended Christian seminary. Most people who are Judges went to Law School. Most doctors attended medical school. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of Biblical scholars who are Atheists. Not a lot of firemen who are pyromaniacs.

 

[Alex.]

In a court of law there is ZERO admissible evidence for Jesus.

No, if this were something a court would hear a case on, you'd be laughed out of court by the judge.

Now if the court is a kangaroo court happening in your vapid little head... maybe so. Because you've abandoned reason and adopted a crazy radical view that no serious scholar has. You've admitted that you refuse to look at the evidence because you think all the scholars are lying.

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.
I am a Systems Analyst.
In my position, I have to produce an ACTUAL result.

I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical.

Your case would be laughed out of court.
Your "Scholars" produced as evidence...
[] TNT
[] Post-Mortum Heresay

TNT is NOT evidence.
Post-Mortum Heresay is NOT evidence.

I know you hate to lose, but you lost.

If there's one thing I learned in Graduate School is DO WHAT YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU TO DO.
These "Scholars" are as full of crap as the "Caffeine is GOOD/BAD" "researchers".
I have more PhDs per square foot in my 3 Temples than you have in your town.
Most of the PhDs I know didn't know they were being manipulated until I had conversations with them.
I know how research works.

Let's look at this from ANOTHER angle...
If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say.

What school did you attend?

"I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical." So what.

"If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say"

Because the scholars unlike you have to prove their work among peers and those standards are what is respected in court if that is where you wish to have this discussion. Lastly this is what makes a person a qualified expert such as those I have relied upon:
"Education. the expert was educated at a very fine and reputable higher-learning institution, but also that the expert has supplemented his or her credentials with vigorous course work that is specific to the issue at hand.

· Work experience. The expert should be able to articulate how his or her relevant work experience has contributed to the field or substantiated previous theories and/or techniques.

· Independent research. The research on which the expert bases his or her opinion should be performed independently of the [OP]

· Publications. The expert should explain that his or her research publications directly relate to the issue pending"


AT THE GATES: QUALIFYING AND CHALLENGING QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERTS

 

[Indeependent]

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

• Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
• Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
• Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
• The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

So Paul of Tarsus was a real person who wrote extensively about Jesus and his message.

Now... I have no idea how to maneuver through your minefield of rejection when it comes to evidence... you seem to want some kind of a historical quote from a non-Christian, talking about Jesus in his writings or something? Of course, Paul of Tarsus is about as close as you'll get to that... but you don't accept him because... why again? Oh... he wrote part of the Bible!

The New Testament of the Bible is a comprehensive set of books from people writing about Jesus. It's like the Jesus Documentary box set. But that's not "evidence" for you.

In short, what you have spent days here demanding is that someone change your stubborn mind that refuses to accept evidence of any kind if it contradicts your preconceived belief. Maybe you're retarded and don't comprehend this but no one can ever make you change your mind.

Apparently, you never read The Book of James; Paul never met Jesus. James says Paul was an asshole.
I am already familiar with your long winded style which is why I never respond to your postings.

 

[Indeependent]

In a court of law there is ZERO admissible evidence for Jesus.

No, if this were something a court would hear a case on, you'd be laughed out of court by the judge.

Now if the court is a kangaroo court happening in your vapid little head... maybe so. Because you've abandoned reason and adopted a crazy radical view that no serious scholar has. You've admitted that you refuse to look at the evidence because you think all the scholars are lying.

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.
I am a Systems Analyst.
In my position, I have to produce an ACTUAL result.

I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical.

Your case would be laughed out of court.
Your "Scholars" produced as evidence...
[] TNT
[] Post-Mortum Heresay

TNT is NOT evidence.
Post-Mortum Heresay is NOT evidence.

I know you hate to lose, but you lost.

If there's one thing I learned in Graduate School is DO WHAT YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU TO DO.
These "Scholars" are as full of crap as the "Caffeine is GOOD/BAD" "researchers".
I have more PhDs per square foot in my 3 Temples than you have in your town.
Most of the PhDs I know didn't know they were being manipulated until I had conversations with them.
I know how research works.

Let's look at this from ANOTHER angle...
If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say.

What school did you attend?

"I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical." So what.

"If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say"

Because the scholars unlike you have to prove their work among peers and those standards are what is respected in court if that is where you wish to have this discussion. Lastly this is what makes a person a qualified expert such as those I have relied upon:
"Education. the expert was educated at a very fine and reputable higher-learning institution, but also that the expert has supplemented his or her credentials with vigorous course work that is specific to the issue at hand.

· Work experience. The expert should be able to articulate how his or her relevant work experience has contributed to the field or substantiated previous theories and/or techniques.

· Independent research. The research on which the expert bases his or her opinion should be performed independently of the [OP]

· Publications. The expert should explain that his or her research publications directly relate to the issue pending"


AT THE GATES: QUALIFYING AND CHALLENGING QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERTS

Not your business.
The fact is that you accept "facts" that are not admissible to anyone but a board of like "Scholars".
Sort of like Liberals cheering Liberals and Conservatives cheering Conservatives.

 

[sealybobo]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

You have to admit the stories of Jesus have been eggaggerated. Walking on water, virgin birth, rose from the dead, turned 3 fish and 4 loaves into a first for thousands?

If you guys are getting your feelings hurt maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Alex.]

In a court of law there is ZERO admissible evidence for Jesus.

No, if this were something a court would hear a case on, you'd be laughed out of court by the judge.

Now if the court is a kangaroo court happening in your vapid little head... maybe so. Because you've abandoned reason and adopted a crazy radical view that no serious scholar has. You've admitted that you refuse to look at the evidence because you think all the scholars are lying.

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.
I am a Systems Analyst.
In my position, I have to produce an ACTUAL result.

I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical.

Your case would be laughed out of court.
Your "Scholars" produced as evidence...
[] TNT
[] Post-Mortum Heresay

TNT is NOT evidence.
Post-Mortum Heresay is NOT evidence.

I know you hate to lose, but you lost.

If there's one thing I learned in Graduate School is DO WHAT YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU TO DO.
These "Scholars" are as full of crap as the "Caffeine is GOOD/BAD" "researchers".
I have more PhDs per square foot in my 3 Temples than you have in your town.
Most of the PhDs I know didn't know they were being manipulated until I had conversations with them.
I know how research works.

Let's look at this from ANOTHER angle...
If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say.

What school did you attend?

"I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical." So what.

"If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say"

Because the scholars unlike you have to prove their work among peers and those standards are what is respected in court if that is where you wish to have this discussion. Lastly this is what makes a person a qualified expert such as those I have relied upon:
"Education. the expert was educated at a very fine and reputable higher-learning institution, but also that the expert has supplemented his or her credentials with vigorous course work that is specific to the issue at hand.

· Work experience. The expert should be able to articulate how his or her relevant work experience has contributed to the field or substantiated previous theories and/or techniques.

· Independent research. The research on which the expert bases his or her opinion should be performed independently of the [OP]

· Publications. The expert should explain that his or her research publications directly relate to the issue pending"


AT THE GATES: QUALIFYING AND CHALLENGING QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERTS

Not your business.
The fact is that you accept "facts" that are not admissible to anyone but a board of like "Scholars".
Sort of like Liberals cheering Liberals and Conservatives cheering Conservatives.

"Not your business." LOL You submitted this into the discussion then you refuse to qualify. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

Sure.
"Look judge, I promise you someone will testify on my behalf 40 years after I'm dead...I promise!".
Remind me never to use you as a lawyer.

This is not a court room and in here you are not a lawyer. Speak to the issue >>No historical Jesus

I provided 3 sources those sources have been vetted by qualified experts then peer reviewed and here along come you an acerbic, egotistical, chuckle head with no more than a hobbyist's interest in the issue attempting to discredit well established and respected educational institutions, educators and other professionals with bluster and baloney all because you lost a debate on an internet forum.

BFJ

A cult leader name Jesus may have existed 2000 years ago and he may have been crucified I'll give you that.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

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.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Well... yes... usually, people who are Biblical scholars attended Christian seminary. Most people who are Judges went to Law School. Most doctors attended medical school. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of Biblical scholars who are Atheists. Not a lot of firemen who are pyromaniacs.

Where they're all wrong is to assume some guy walked on water and did other miracles. To accept that from our ignorant elders who are stuck in the old world is wrong.

You want to believe an all powerful thing created all this fine. Any evidence of it visiting is bullshit and you know it. It's why you aren't a Christian.

 

[Indeependent]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

Grow up.
I can debate on this and other subjects without resorting to Googling links.
Can you?

 

[Alex.]

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.

There is no such degree or course of study that I could find.

 

[Alex.]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

Grow up.
I can debate on this and other subjects without resorting to Googling links.
Can you?

When I debate on facts I provide sources and sites. When I discuss opinion I don't, generally.

 

[Indeependent]

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.

There is no such degree or course of study that I could find.

There are lots of Master's programs that come and go in today's ever changing market and economy.
I could have posted anything but I tend to stick to the truth.

 

[OZman]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

Cannot find any stats on the net Alex, but it is factual. My point is that seminary scholars are not going to jeopardize their careers by bucking the system.

SBL Publications

 

[Indeependent]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

Grow up.
I can debate on this and other subjects without resorting to Googling links.
Can you?

When I debate on facts I provide sources and sites. When I discuss opinion I don't, generally.

I'm waiting for facts.
Your sites are at best amateurish HTMLs that I was introduced to back in 1998-2003.

 

[Alex.]

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.

There is no such degree or course of study that I could find.

There are lots of Master's programs that come and go in today's ever changing market and economy.
I could have posted anything but I tend to stick to the truth.

Try again. You float a great deal of unsubstantiated posts this is merely one of them.

 

[Alex.]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Can you back that up with stats and a source then qualify the relevance if the stats prove you correct.

Grow up.
I can debate on this and other subjects without resorting to Googling links.
Can you?

When I debate on facts I provide sources and sites. When I discuss opinion I don't, generally.

I'm waiting for facts.
Your sites are at best amateurish HTMLs that I was introduced to back in 1998-2003.

Baloney you are beat, your position has not been substantiated and now you are attempting to discredit the established educational institutions and well respected educators and professionals I have presented.