Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

[Iasion]

Gday,

I'd say you have a horrible way of making a point. What has a leprachaun (that no one takes seriously), got to do with a book like the bible that has more than 50 different authors that billions of people take quite seriously? Perhaps you can explain the connection because I just don't see it.

Easy.
Some people DO believe in leprachauns Woody.
Some people DO believe in Jesus Christ.
But, there is no evidence for EITHER.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Nobody said they could, however someone must decide if the witness is lying.

We don't have a witness, Woody.
We have several BOOKS, not witnesses.
Can you tell people from books, Woody?

We have a set of books preaching religious beliefs, from unknown hands. Books which are full of magic that is impossible. Books that have been largely created from earlier myths. Books that copy each other, yet make changes for different reasons.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

The witness must take the stand before you can make the call. If you have other witnesses that can contradict the false witness testimony, then you clearly have a convincing case worth considering. You haven't won your argument, but at least you have data for your point of view. So do you have any eyewitness accounts from 33 AD, that say something like, "I was here in Jerusalem, and this Jesus guy wasn't."

Wow.
You CAN'T tell people from books.

Woody -
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are BOOKS, mate ! They aren't people, they are books.
There are NO witnesses at all. They are all dead. All we have is old BOOKS.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

You are correct in that you lack evidence that invalidates the gospel accounts.

You lack evidence that invalidates the Greek myths.
You lack evidence that invalidates the Hindu Scriptures.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Currently the best historical evidence available is a bible. It might not be correct, but it is the best evidence available.

The bible is as much historical evidence as the Greek myths or the Hindu scriptures.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

This isn't Homer (one author) and the Odessy (one book). It is a collection of several different authors.

The writings about Hercules include THIRTY EIGHT authors - you only have four Gospels!
Pfft !
Hercules is 9 times more true than Jesus.

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


Iasion

 

[ggazoo]

it's cause they're dead

None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Can you guys please explain here?

 

[Woody]

again, you are missing the point, which i explained in the last post if you read it in context

I got the point. You likened Jesus Christ to a leprechaun. The point was to make you feel good about your opinion while loading your statement with sarcasm against the opposing view.

it's cause they're dead

My father is dead to. His last will and testament is still in effect. He had to die first before the will could have value.

so what if it came from more than one author? lots of societies had legends which were passed down for generations. each time someone told the story it would be altered. it doesn't mean the legends are true

it doesn't mean they are false either. It does mean there was a phenomena that may have been misinterpreted.

historians follow(ed) specific procedures in coming up with what they believe happened in the past. theists just say "cause the bible says so." which one is more reliable? (actually, i'd prefer is a theist didn't answer this question)

Most historians accept the historicity of the bible. It is very specific about where the events occured, who the rulers were, etc etc. It's not about odysseus in the magical land of the cyclops.

occam's razor says nothing about throwing away observations.

It says that simplifying the problem is good, but oversimplifying the problem is bad.

look it up.

I suggest you read it since you brought it up. It's a good idea to reduce a problem to it's simplist form, but oversiplifying produces confounding errors.

and the bible being real has nothing to do with its validity.

The bible is 66 books mostly by different authors. They just happen to be bound together and called a "bible."

harry potter books are real but it doesn't mean wizards exist.

Harry Potter books only have one author, and that author doesn't claim Harry Potter is a real person or wizards for that matter.

you have the burden of proof, not me.

I presented my evidence, which is the bible. You have nothing to disprove it.

 

[geeser]

It doesn't mean they are false either.

No but it also doesn't validate them.

It does mean there was a phenomena that may have been misinterpreted.

No, they're simply a compendium of fictional books.

Most historians accept the historicity of the bible.

Do they! care to posit up a link or two.

It is very specific about where the events occured, who the rulers were, etc etc.

Yes just like any book, it needs a bit of truth to give it authenticity, We know there's a real place called New York, and we also know that the fictional Spiderman lives there according to the stories. Spiderman must be real using your logic. And James Bond as he's known in London, Paris, and New York. lol..

It's not about odysseus in the magical land of the cyclops.

But very similar.

The bible is 66 books mostly by different authors. They just happen to be bound together and called a "bible."

A thousand and one nights is a collection of books/stories by numerous authors, this must then make it as valid as the bible.

Harry Potter books only have one author, and that author doesn't claim Harry Potter is a real person or wizards for that matter.

Then James Bond, must most definitely be real, since Flemings death several authors have written the Bond stories.

I presented my evidence, which is the bible. You have nothing to disprove it.

No, Only common sense and other books of myths and legends. No theres nothing to disprove it, lol.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Can you guys please explain here?[None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses]

Sure,
scholars agree G.Mark was not written by an eye-witness, but by an unknown person, probably in Rome, who knew little of the culture or geography. See details here :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Then, the unknown authors of G.Luke and G.Matthew copied from G.Mark. G.John follows later with a different story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

The Gospels were originally anonymous, from unknown sources who never met any Jesus - that's what modern NT scholars agree. But faithful believers are the last to know what experts agree if it disagrees with their faith.


Iasion

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Most historians accept the historicity of the bible. It is very specific about where the events occured, who the rulers were, etc etc. It's not about odysseus in the magical land of the cyclops.

*************
M*W: Most historians, archeologists, and biblical scholars DO NOT accept the historicity of the bible. It's just that you don't know who these scientists are, you have never read their work, nor what they have discovered to no longer be true according to bible authors.

 

[(Q)]

I presented my evidence, which is the bible. You have nothing to disprove it.

And, you have, what, to prove the bible?

 

[Woody]

No but it also doesn't validate them.

Wher eis your proof that invalidates them?

No, they're simply a compendium of fictional books.

Fictional to you but functional to me and billions of other people. It works in our lives to make us happier, healthier, and less self-centerred.

Do they! care to posit up a link or two.

Surely you accept that Jerusalem existed two thousand years ago, as well as Ceasar.

Yes just like any book, it needs a bit of truth to give it authenticity, We know there's a real place called New York, and we also know that the fictional Spiderman lives there according to the stories.

So what are you expecting as proof, a DVD?

Spiderman must be real using your logic.

Actually you made a straw man for yourself. Have fun with him.

And James Bond as he's known in London, Paris, and New York. lol..

Does anyone honestly believe he is a real person? Billions of people believe Jesus Christ was a real person. We all have the same information. So what are you going to say now, that we must be dumber? The funny thing is, most atheists I run into are employed in some pseudoscience like anthropology, or biology, or pshychiatry that's rife with humanistic philosophy. In the hard sciences I'd say we are about equally split. I'm a degreed engineer myself, with a pretty rigorous education in the physical sciences, as are many of my co-workers who also believe God exists.

But very similar.

Does anyone honestly believe there is a cyclops?

A thousand and one nights is a collection of books/stories by numerous authors, this must then make it as valid as the bible.

Do they claim any of the characters are real?

Then James Bond, must most definitely be real, since Flemings death several authors have written the Bond stories.

Several actors have played the character as well, and I don't really see the point of this game. Who believes James Bond is a real person?

No, Only common sense

Even a child can figure it out God exists. So why can't you?

and other books of myths and legends.

you have no counter-testimony. That's a crying shame for you.

No theres nothing to disprove it, lol.

indeed.

 

[Woody]

And, you have, what, to prove the bible?

Let's find what we can agree on.

Do you believe for example that Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago?
Do you believe Ceasar was the emporer of Rome?

Where do you begin to start disagreeing?

Secondly I don't have to prove the bible. If it didn't work in my life and in the lives of other people then we'd have no use for it even as you.

We believe it because it works. What's the point in proving it?

 

[Woody]

*************
M*W: Most historians, archeologists, and biblical scholars DO NOT accept the historicity of the bible.

The ones you listen to anyway.

It's just that you don't know who these scientists are, you have never read their work, nor what they have discovered to no longer be true according to bible authors.

Specifically in the first century, what examples??? I've heard your rants before, and none of it is ever substantiated. Show me a university that teaches it in a degreed curriculum.

 

[ggazoo]

The Gospels were originally anonymous, from unknown sources who never met any Jesus - that's what modern NT scholars agree. But faithful believers are the last to know what experts agree if it disagrees with their faith.

Just because some scholars agree doesn't mean that they all do. And I don't think that the faithful are the last to know anything if they are in fact educated in what the Bible is saying.

Mark says that the man who helped Jesus carry his cross to the calvary "was the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21). There is no reason for the author to include such names unless the readers know or could have access to them. Mark is saying, "Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, if you want to ask them."

 

[wizard]

I got the point. You likened Jesus Christ to a leprechaun. The point was to make you feel good about your opinion while loading your statement with sarcasm against the opposing view.

no

My father is dead to. His last will and testament is still in effect. He had to die first before the will could have value.

off topic

it doesn't mean they are false either. It does mean there was a phenomena that may have been misinterpreted.

it doesn't mean it's true either, so we shouldn't assume it is

Most historians accept the historicity of the bible. It is very specific about where the events occured, who the rulers were, etc etc. It's not about odysseus in the magical land of the cyclops.

no they don't. stop making stuff up

It says that simplifying the problem is good, but oversimplifying the problem is bad.

this is somewhat correct, but not a good description at all

I suggest you read it since you brought it up. It's a good idea to reduce a problem to it's simplist form, but oversiplifying produces confounding errors.

and leaving out the "facts" in the bible is not oversimplification

The bible is 66 books mostly by different authors. They just happen to be bound together and called a "bible."

so?

Harry Potter books only have one author, and that author doesn't claim Harry Potter is a real person or wizards for that matter.

the number of authors has nothing to do with the book's validity. and it doesn't matter what the authors claim. you look at the evidence.

I presented my evidence, which is the bible. You have nothing to disprove it.

and the bible isn't evidence. the fact that it can't be disproven it its problem

ezpz, although you misunderstanding everything is getting boring

 

[Woody]

no they don't. stop making stuff up

I'm not making it up, rather this forum has a bunch of Jesus myth kooks on it.

Here's what the general populace agrees on:

Historicity of Jesus

With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]

[1] Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.


History of Jesus

Jesus Myth Hypothesis

The antecedents of the hypothesis can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s.

So some 1700 years after the gospel accounts appeared, this Jesus myth hypothesis comes along. Why did it take 1700 years? It appears real obvious to anyone with an inkling of intelligence that this teacher named Jesus existed. Maybe the bible made him bigger than life, but he existed.

 

[geeser]

Wher eis your proof that invalidates them?

Simply, lack of evidence, eye witnesses, writings by a jesus, roman recorded evidence, etc...

Fictional to you but functional to me and billions of other people. It works in our lives to make us happier, healthier, and less self-centerred.

And more likely to kill or harm.

Surely you accept that Jerusalem existed two thousand years ago, as well as Ceasar.

Yes, but how does that prove a jesus person existed.
The 1001 nights has Babylon and the Kalif, whats your point.

Yes just like any book, it needs a bit of truth to give it authenticity, We know there's a real place called New York, and we also know that the fictional Spiderman lives there according to the stories.

So what are you expecting as proof, a DVD?

No, just something to show jesus is not a fictional concept. Your yet to show that.

We know there's a real place called New York, and we also know that the fictional Spiderman lives there according to the stories. Spiderman must be real using your logic.

Actually you made a straw man for yourself. Have fun with him.

Lol, how so. just because a jesus person is named in the bible, it does not prove he was real. He's about as real as Spiderman, which is my point.

Does anyone honestly believe he is a real person? Billions of people believe Jesus Christ was a real person.

Appeal to popularity, Huge Fail: It doesn't make him real.

Does anyone honestly believe there is a cyclops?

I dare say theres someone, after all the world does have two thirds of it's population believing in gods/devil, angels/demons, cockatrices/satars, talking snakes and donkeys.

Do they claim any of the characters are real?

Thats the point, without any evidence it would be foolish to, wouldn't it.

Several actors have played the character as well, and I don't really see the point of this game. Who believes James Bond is a real person?

The point is James Bond, is fictional in a factual enviroment, giving him authenticity, all authors do this, to give there characters some realism, and now the same character(James Bond) has been written about by several authors, just like this jesus character.

Even a child can figure it out God exists. So why can't you?

Yes children can, once they have been indoctrinated, However I have deprogramed myself and reverted back to the norm. Thus I know it's all BS, children unfortunately accept the BS spewed to them from the religious, because they know no better. It's a kind of child abuse.

you have no counter-testimony.

The fact that it cannot be verified, is testimony enough, lol.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Here's what the general populace agrees on:

Historicity of Jesus

So they agree, that it is likely jesus never existed. or at least it is dubious that he ever lived. Ok.

History of Jesus

Ah so here, their still on a quest to prove jesus exists. Ok.

Jesus Myth Hypothesis

And here they are, still not sure.

 

[(Q)]

Let's find what we can agree on.

Do you believe for example that Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago?
Do you believe Ceasar was the emporer of Rome?

Do I blindly, faithfully believe in those things? Of course, not. Can I find oodles of evidence to support their existence? Yup.

Where do you begin to start disagreeing?

The very instant you begin to claim the magical and mythical exist.

Secondly I don't have to prove the bible. If it didn't work in my life and in the lives of other people then we'd have no use for it even as you.

We believe it because it works. What's the point in proving it?

Good point, Woody. That's fine that the bible gets you through life, most weak minded people need such a crutch.

But, if you start claiming gods, angels, imps and demons actually exist, you'll fall flat.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive but only after 100 years after he died! How can anyone remember what went on after 3 or 4 generations and so vividly as well?

 

[Woody]

Nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive but only after 100 years after he died! How can anyone remember what went on after 3 or 4 generations and so vividly as well?

This is typical for history of that period and earlier. It is usual that historical facts during that time (and earlier) aren't very well circulated until more than a hundred years later, because there weren't any printing presses. In addition the person writing the document usually spent many years collecting and verifying the accounts of several people. Transportation was slow.

This is standard for history in that period of time, and the gospel passages are no exception. I suggest you read how history was verified by the 150 something scholars for that period of time:

Jesus Seminar

I might add there is no credible historical evidence for the "Jesus myth hypothesis". It's the work of some kooks some 1700 years later, using a comparative religion analogy. Analogy is a very poor from of argument.

This approach is equivalent to the false claim that human embryonic development is "proof of evolution" because the fetus goes through various developmental stages resembling the evolutionary steps. However, the so-called "gill slits" on the side of the fetus neck ended up being ears, not lungs.

Analogy is a very poor form of argument.

 

[Woody]

Do I blindly, faithfully believe in those things? Of course, not. Can I find oodles of evidence to support their existence? Yup.



The very instant you begin to claim the magical and mythical exist.

I haven't made that claim in this thread.

Good point, Woody. That's fine that the bible gets you through life, most weak minded people need such a crutch.

Thanks for all your respect, but I don't see it that way. I admit I can't control some things that influence my life, and I think that's being honest with myself.

But, if you start claiming gods, angels, imps and demons actually exist, you'll fall flat.

I haven't made such claim, rather I admit that I have limitations as a human.

 

[Woody]

Yes children can, once they have been indoctrinated.

That's how you see it.

Children are more open-minded than adults, and don't have prejudices or a personal agenda to defend -- that's the way I see it.