Saying there's no reason to think Jesus (the man) existed, is like saying there's no reason to think Socrates existed.
Do you believe Jesus once existed? (Poll)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
OMG Look guys! Proof Jesus didn't exist!:o
The Hidden Teachings of the Secret Gospel of Buddha
By David Wood, President and Founder of the Buddha Seminar
Since there has been such a scholarly upheaval over the recent discovery of the once lost "Secret Gospel of Buddha," and since I am the world's leading authority on this topic, I have decided to enlighten my readers as to the message of this treasured work.With that goal in mind, I shall begin this discussion with a description of the amazing archaeological find that gave us this gospel.
Discovery of the Millennium!
One of the greatest archaeologists of our time, Dr. Rippleton Oopingfoth III, had been searching for Secret Gospel of Buddha for decades before suddenly stumbling upon it near his home in Butte, Montana."I had noticed as a college student that there was no mention of any 'Gospel of Buddha' in antiquity, and this concerned me," said Dr. Oopingfoth in a private interview."It seemed to me that there should be a 'Gospel of Buddha.'Jesus and Buddha were two of the greatest religious figures in history, and so it makes sense to think that they must have talked quite a bit with one another.Startled by this insight, I concluded that Buddha must have written a document describing some of the teachings that came out of these secret conversations with Jesus.Since there were no historical records of such a book having ever existed, I realized that the early Christian church must have covered up all traces of it.I spent most of my life looking for Buddha's secret gospel, so you can imagine how pleased I was when I found it lying in my own backyard!"
Dating the Gospel
While most scholars would date the Gospel of Buddha at somewhere around the year AD 2005, the self-proclaimed members of the Buddha Seminar disagree.We believe GB is extremely early, dating to the first century AD at the latest.Our reasoning is simple.Jesus lived during the first century AD, and Buddha lived during the sixth century BC; thus, their conversations couldn't have taken place any later than the time of Jesus.Buddha would have written his gospel shortly thereafter.We voted on this date using different colored tablets of TUMS® antacid.Four pink tablets from the members of the Buddha seminar—Daniel Matthews, Zach Tabor, Sophia De Morgan, and myself—indicate the high probability of our being correct.In order to confirm our reasoning, we placed three different foods in front of Cletus, my pet monkey.The first was a plate of steamed okra, which we marked "2005."The next was a bowl of uncooked rice, marked "6th Century BC."The final food was a ripe banana with "1st Century AD" written across the peel in magic marker.Cletus immediately went for the banana, proving our conjecture that, given the evidence, even a stupid monkey would conclude that GB is a first century work.
Of course, one might object to our date by pointing out that Buddha died centuries before Jesus was born in Palestine.But such an objection can easily be countered.First, this sort of objection is based on the same Western, logic-chopping, non-contradictory way of thinking that led the Nicene Council to exclude the Gnostic gospels from the Christian canon in the first place.They reasoned that, since none of the Gnostic texts came from anything even remotely resembling an eyewitness to Jesus' teachings and deeds, the Gnostic texts should therefore be ruled out as authentic sources.However, the scholars of the Buddha Seminar believe (four pink tablets) that no one should be allowed to call any so-called Christian text "heresy" just because it doesn't fit in with what actually happened in the first century.Therefore, people shouldn't object to the Gospel of Buddha on the grounds that it "couldn't have happened."
Second, I must also point out where such objections will ultimately lead a person.Someone who spends time analyzing the historical "evidence" for texts will have to conclude that the only eyewitness accounts we have of the life of Jesus are found in the New Testament.If people start believing the New Testament, they run the risk of becoming "orthodox" Christians, believing in doctrines such as the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus.These doctrines support the exclusivity of Christianity, which is something that open-minded, tolerant people should not tolerate.Thus, truly open-minded individuals should believe anything, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, rather than believe in the historical evidence about the life of Jesus.
Third, since there are no mentions of Buddha in the New Testament, we can conclude that the early writers of the Christian gospels were deliberately trying to exclude GB from early Christianity.This would put GB before the New Testament gospels, making it an extremely valuable source.
Finally, the opening verse of GB (see below) claims to be written during the first century.To question the authenticity of this statement would be tantamount to questioning the integrity of Buddha himself, and this would offend millions of Buddhists.The members of the Buddha Seminar feel that it is wrong to offend anyone (except, perhaps, orthodox Christians, who are to be constantly ridiculed).
The Difficulty of Translating GB
The scholars of the Buddha Seminar have been working nonstop for months to provide inquirers with an accurate English translation of the Gospel of Buddha, a text that was originally written in English.One may wonder how translating a text from English to English could be such a difficult task.I answer by noting that much of the Gospel of Buddha was written in a very difficult font (Lucida Sans Unicode, size 8) and that we are trying to translate the text into Times New Roman, size 12. In fact, our scholars are working diligently to translate GB into BOLD type by the time of this article's publication, so that the verses will look even more impressive.
While we have only translated eight verses of GB (out of more than nine), we have decided to publish what we have translated thus far.I will follow this translation with concluding thoughts about some of the verses.
The Text of GB
1These are the secretive, private, confidential, discreet, cryptic, unuttered, unspoken, hush-hush teachings that Jesus revealed unto Buddha, when they met on one of the moons of Jupiter, which have now been revealed unto all men and women, Mormons and Muslims, and Americans and Europeans.And this Gospel was written by Buddha during the first century.
2Behold!I, Buddha, spoke with Jesus on the sacred moon of the planet called "The Big Planet," which is mostly gas with a solid core.
3And I said unto him, "Jesus, can you reveal unto me the dark secrets of the hidden monadology?"
4And he said unto me, "Yes, Buddha, to you are the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven revealed.But from others they shall be kept, so that weeping they shall not weep, and sleeping they shall not sleep, and peeping they shall not peep, and leaping they shall not leap, and sweeping they shall not sweep.Behold!The conglomeration of the sacred hypotenuse will differentiate the parallelogram, anytime the consanguinity doesn't emulate the ordinary effervescence.Therefore the eccentricity of the aggregation will transubstantiate the perpendicular, and fulminate the perspicacity of the consequences.Do you understand this?"
5I answered, "Yea, Lord.But what about women?"
6Jesus replied, "The women shall all become men by having sex-change operations that will make them men.This will save their souls.But let them neither fast, nor pray, nor show mercy unto anyone, for these are the deeds that will lead one into the pits of Hell."
7"Lord Jesus," I said."Tell me more about the Last Days."
8Jesus answered, "In the Last Days, people will cling to many books in their efforts to avoid the truth.They will believe anyone who tells them to reject me as Lord, and many books will be written against me.People will think they are being 'unique,' or 'tolerant,' or 'spiritual' by rejecting the truth, but in doing so they shall become fools.And no one can make them listen, for they don't want to listen.Anyone who writes books making ludicrous claims will sell many copies, because these are the claims people want to hear."
Conclusion
There is much we can learn from this text; however, I will limit my discussion to a few short points.First, the opening verse mentions the moons of Jupiter, which were unknown during the first century.This proves, conclusively, that GB had a supernatural origin.
Second, it should also be noted that the opening verse is very inclusive, stating that the teachings listed here are for everyone.Contrast this with orthodox Christianity, which claims that we should all listen to what Jesus said just because he rose from the dead, performed miracles, and created the universe.
Third, the beginning of verse four sounds like some of the verses of the New Testament.This means that GB must have been drawn from some of the same sources from which those gospels were drawn, lending further support to the early date of GB.
Fourth, verse six says that women shall be saved by becoming men, and that people should avoid charity and fasting.This is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity, which teaches Christians to feed the hungry, to help the poor, to fast, and to pray.Yet this verse is completely consistent with the Gospel of Thomas, a second-century book that has recently been championed by a handful of scholars in our sister organization, the Jesus Seminar:
Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves.If you pray, you will be condemned.If you give alms, you will harm your spirits" (14).
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females are not worthy of life."Jesus said, "Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.For every female who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (114).
Finally, though verse eight looks important, the meaning of this esoteric passage is uncertain.It sounds as if Jesus is warning people about blindly trusting unsupported claims.This can't be the meaning, however, since we feel that all teachings are good and true, except orthodox Christian teachings, which are both bad and false.
For valuable information about gospels similar to the Gospel of Buddha, see some of the recent works of their modern supporters.I recommend the following books as a supplement to the reasoning put forth in this article:
Crossan, John Dominic.The Essential Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1989).
Funk, Robert.The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996).
Pagels, Elaine.Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Vintage Books, 2003).
If you read all these and would still like to read more, just study anything by the Jesus Seminar, the Buddha Seminar, or Elaine Pagels.However, if you disagree with our conclusions, know that you won't disagree for long.The members of the Buddha Seminar have friends at some popular television networks.We've managed to impress them, and there is an upcoming special on the Gospel of Buddha to be released later this year.Seven scholars will be interviewed on the show, and four of them are members of the Buddha Seminar! This means that only three people on the show will be able to object to our comments, and it will appear as if most scholars hold that GB is a reliable source!This is a little trick we learned from the Jesus Seminar.
Behold!The conglomeration of the sacred hypotenuse will differentiate the parallelogram, anytime the consanguinity doesn't emulate the ordinary effervescence.Therefore the eccentricity of the aggregation will transubstantiate the perpendicular, and fulminate the perspicacity of the consequences.TheokhothThat was great. :lol:
[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Sorry, but an article that references Price, Doherty and others of their ilk simply is not a good source, especially since most of those compared myths have no actual comparison.
And by the way, this whole "comparitive mythology" thing is based on the Genetic Fallacy.
Theokhoth
Are you saying there were no influences on Christianityfrom earlier beliefs?
No; I'm saying that the idea that Christ never existed based on made-up similarities is laughable and fallacious.
Made up? Bacchus, Horus, Mithras, Hellenistic tradition, Tamuz Adonis and links with Buddhism say you are wrong.
Even the most ardent Christian would find that suggestion laughable.
I doubt that.
Have you not heard of Christianisation?
The page to which I refer sources many other religions and authors despite the ones that seem to scare you.
And they are wrong. They do not frighten me; I am not frightened by incompetence. Instead of letting Wikipedia do your talking, why don't you give me x deity and x deity's similarities?
There are so many - the similar buddhist parables - Hellenistic theophagy and Christos - Tamuz' death and re-birth - The indian vedic similarities - where to start?
The sheer weight of evidence from these earlier religions is indisputible.
Like hell it is. Most of this is discredited by actual study, and it is the consensus of the entire historical community that Jesus did exist. That is what is indisputable.
Please show me some of this discredited evidence. Consnesus of religious scholars may be for Jesus existence - so what? But historians tend to make more deductive studies that include archaeology and scientific analysis. Since I know that some historians do doubt Jesus' life, your argument is false. It's also a fallacious arguement ad-populum!
Your genetic fallacy comment is not relevent here.
You: "There are similarities to other religions. Therefore Christ did not exist." That is an attack on the origin of Christ and Christianity that concludes with "therefore, it was wrong," and thus is a genetic fallacy.
I'm not saying he didn't exist because there were previous similar religious figures, since previous similar religious figures would not preclude Jesus' exisence. My reasoning for thinking Jesus did not exist stems only from the lack of credible evidence for his existence.
I am not overlooking the differences to be found between the mythical Christ and previous religions, but comparing them instead.
And concluding that Christ did not exist based on these myths.
No - it's known as a supporting argument. I believe the previous similar religions were the rationale behind the Jesus myth.
Please, give me something besides a Wikipdia article.
Please give me something besides pure faith.
Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that. But what people don't agree on is whether the things he said were true.
Tim_Q
things he said or things he did? perhaps both, but it's his miracles that no one had seen that has captured the heart and imagination of believers today, while the other half questions him floating on water or bringing Lazarus back from the dead, or himself for that matter
Not like i care. What's the diference? If he existed then, well, he did. If he didn't, his supopsed words still hold value nonetheless.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Sorry, but an article that references Price, Doherty and others of their ilk simply is not a good source, especially since most of those compared myths have no actual comparison.
And by the way, this whole "comparitive mythology" thing is based on the Genetic Fallacy.
diz360
Made up? Bacchus, Horus, Mithras, Hellenistic tradition, Tamuz Adonis and links with Buddhism say you are wrong.
Mithra.
Horus.
Bacchus (also knows as Dionysus)
Hellenistic culture had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.:| Look up the Septuagint.
Tammuz.
What links with Buddhism?
Also, please note that the first three links were NOT written by a Christian apologist.
Have you not heard of Christianisation?
Yes; do you not know that Christianisation does not = Christianity is pagan?:lol:
There are so many - the similar buddhist parables - Hellenistic theophagy and Christos - Tamuz' death and re-birth - The indian vedic similarities - where to start?
Sorry, but "Christos" is used to denote an "anointed one" and rarely has anything to do with theism.
Please show me some of this discredited evidence.
Look up.
Consnesus of religious scholars may be for Jesus existence - so what?
Umn, no. Secular and religious scholars agree that Jesus did exist. Also, playing the "bias" card isn't going to help you here.
But historians tend to make more deductive studies that include archaeology and scientific analysis. Since I know that some historians do doubt Jesus' life, your argument is false.
There are scientists who doubt evolution.:lol:
It's also a fallacious arguement ad-populum!
No, that would be if I said that about people who know nothing about history. If I said "most evolutionists believe Jesus existed," then you'd be right.
I'm not saying he didn't exist because there were previous similar religious figures, since previous similar religious figures would not preclude Jesus' exisence. My reasoning for thinking Jesus did not exist stems only from the lack of credible evidence for his existence.
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Sarapion, the Talmud, the Gospels, Thallus and Lucian. All of these people and works, some of whom are regarded as the most reliable historians in history, reference Christ.
No - it's known as a supporting argument. I believe the previous similar religions were the rationale behind the Jesus myth.
A m yth that is made up.
Please, give me something besides a Wikipdia article.
Please give me something besides pure faith.
You're the one basing your faith in Zeitgeist propaganda (which is where this Christ-myth crap was popularised) and Wikipedia articles.
[QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
diz360
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
Actually Giligamesh has similar stories to the bible.. and its older.
sSubZerOo
Actually, Gilgamesh has similarties to the story of Noah, not Jesus.
If you want to find a culture that held the concept of immaculate conception and messiah and resurrection, you need to look no further than Etruscan culture which existed before the birth of Jesus. The similarities are astounding.
[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
Theokhoth
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
When I was debating with Diz he starting listing all of these things from wikipedia where it said Horus was the same as Jesus in his birth was witnessed by shepherds, he was born of a virgin etc etc. It turned out to be complete and utter rubbish.
[QUOTE="Diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Diz360"]Mithra.
Horus.
Bacchus (also knows as Dionysus)
Hellenistic culture had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.:| Look up the Septuagint.
Tammuz.
What links with Buddhism?
Also, please note that the first three links were NOT written by a Christian apologist.
Oh - same source - Why don't you do a bit of independent research from unbiased sources:
Tamuz - death and re-birth
Horus - God's living earthly encarnation.
Vedic Indian roots - Brhamism
Mithratic baptism, heaven and hell, ;ast judgement
Yes; do you not know that Christianisation does not = Christianity is pagan?:lol:
I do know that it means conversion by the assumption of another religions rituals and ceremonies - akin to drawing on the traditions of previous religions. :lol:
Sorry, but "Christos" is used to denote an "annointed one" and rarely has naything to do with theism.
I know that hellenism shares theophagy, baptism and "many religious ideas, ethical principles and spiritual elements" (from here)
Look up.
Note - all my links are from impartial sites - rather than anchors from the same page of some partisan propaganda machine.
Umn, no. Secular and religious scholars agree that Jesus did exist. Alsoi playoing the "bias" card isn't going to help you here.
Argument ad-populum - once more. I would nave thought a minority of religious scholars would be secular!
There are scientists who doubt evolution.:lol:
To have doubt is healthy.
No, that would be if I said that about people who know nothing about history. If I said "most evolutionists believe Jesus existed," then you'd be right.
I was referring to your ad-populum fallacy regarding most historians agree... I know it is easy to get mixed up when you cut peoples quotes and change the colours, I suggest you use proper quotes from now on and respond in 1 lump. You can use numbers if you like.
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonious, Mara Bar-Sarapion, the Talmud, the Gospels, Thallus and Lucian. All of these people and works, some of whom are regarded as the most reliable historians, reference Christ.
All of those writings were made decades after Jesus died. Most of the authors you cite were not even born then. Third hand hear-say dated evidence is not credible. There is also reightful suspicion over some Roman texts that have clearly been altered. You must also bear in mind the sheer dearth of writing about Jesus made at the time - a time when documentation was usual.
A m yth that is made up.
You said it!
Theokhoth
Please, give me something besides a Wikipdia article.
Please give me something besides pure faith.
You're the one basing your faith in Zeitgeist propaganda (which is where this Christ-myth crap was popularised) and Wikipedia articles.
No - I investigate using impartial sources of information - rather than rushing to the latest neo-Christian page of venom against nay-sayers.
The Christ myth crap was popularised before Christ.
[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
Theokhoth
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
That was a snippet from a long dialogue about the subject. It clearly shows that your proposition that "No-one disputes whether Jesus lived" to be entirely fallacious.
Additionally, since I don't believe that Jesus as described in the bible existed, your statement is proven incorrect.
Did he exist? Yes. Was he the son of a God? I doubt it. Dark_Knight6
Truth!!!
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
diz360
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
That was a snippet from a long dialogue about the subject. It clearly shows that your proposition that "No-one disputes whether Jesus lived" to be entirely fallacious.
Additionally, since I don't believe that Jesus as described in the bible existed, your statement is proven incorrect.
Ever heard of Gaalyah Cornfield? Gary Habermas?
Everything Cornelius Tacitus said about Jesus, matched exactly with what the Gospels say. Plus, he was considered the greatest of all Roman Historians, and he wasn't a Christian.
I suggest you read what he wrote about the origin of the word "Christian" and about the man whose name it came from - "Christus".
Then once done, cross reference with what Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian all wrote about him.
When I was debating with Diz he starting listing all of these things from wikipedia where it said Horus was the same as Jesus in his birth was witnessed by shepherds, he was born of a virgin etc etc. It turned out to be complete and utter rubbish.Lansdowne5
Ad hominem attack!
I can't be responsible for the contents of Wiki or links from it, but both you and I can edit the pages and go through the editorial processes for content submission there.
I refute I ever said anything about Horus' birth being witnessed by shepherds. I note there is much written about the similarities between Jesus and Horus though. Read the last bit of the "contendings of Horus" as an example of Jesus as the son of God similarity...
[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
Lansdowne5
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
That was a snippet from a long dialogue about the subject. It clearly shows that your proposition that "No-one disputes whether Jesus lived" to be entirely fallacious.
Additionally, since I don't believe that Jesus as described in the bible existed, your statement is proven incorrect.
Ever heard of Gaalyah Cornfield? Gary Habermas?
Everything Cornelius Tacitus said about Jesus, matched exactly with what the Gospels say. Plus, he was considered the greatest of all Roman Historians, and he wasn't a Christian.
I suggest you read what he wrote about the origin of the word "Christian" and about the man whose name it came from - "Christus".
Then once done, cross reference with what Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian all wrote about him.
Yup, but their opinions don't sway me. they both seem defensive and biased. I recall Habermass using totally unbelievable statistics.
Tacitus and the other Romas you speak of weren't around until well after Jesus alledgedly died, so I can't see how their writings could be authoritative on the subject. I wonder why Jesus wasn't mentioned in more than the few much later (and of clearly disputed) periodicals you evidence.
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]
When I was debating with Diz he starting listing all of these things from wikipedia where it said Horus was the same as Jesus in his birth was witnessed by shepherds, he was born of a virgin etc etc. It turned out to be complete and utter rubbish.diz360
Ad hominem attack!
I can't be responsible for the contents of Wiki or links from it, but both you and I can edit the pages and go through the editorial processes for content submission there.
I refute I ever said anything about Horus' birth being witnessed by shepherds. I note there is much written about the similarities between Jesus and Horus though. Read the last bit of the "contendings of Horus" as an example of Jesus as the son of God similarity...
Hahahaha :lol:
That article is total BS. It says Horus's mother is called 'Meri', I've studied Ancient Egyptian beliefs on many occasions, his mother's name is Isis. And again, birth being witnessed by sheperds is complete and utter rubbish. No data between 12 & 30 is rubbish too. This is so obviously case to fit the evidence. Twelve disciples of Horus? It is joking right? :lol:Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind? Yeah right :lol:
Thanks for the laugh dude. I can tell you now that 15 of those comparisons are just completely made up. That's the worst supported link I've ever seen in my life. :lol:
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
diz360
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
That was a snippet from a long dialogue about the subject. It clearly shows that your proposition that "No-one disputes whether Jesus lived" to be entirely fallacious.
Additionally, since I don't believe that Jesus as described in the bible existed, your statement is proven incorrect.
Ever heard of Gaalyah Cornfield? Gary Habermas?
Everything Cornelius Tacitus said about Jesus, matched exactly with what the Gospels say. Plus, he was considered the greatest of all Roman Historians, and he wasn't a Christian.
I suggest you read what he wrote about the origin of the word "Christian" and about the man whose name it came from - "Christus".
Then once done, cross reference with what Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian all wrote about him.
Yup, but their opinions don't sway me. they both seem defensive and biased. I recall Habermass using totally unbelievable statistics.
Tacitus and the other Romas you speak of weren't around until well after Jesus alledgedly died, so I can't see how their writings could be authoritative on the subject. I wonder why Jesus wasn't mentioned in more than the few much later (and of clearly disputed) periodicals you evidence.
They're not biased because they're not flipping Christians.
The gospels weren't written until well after Jesus had died. Oh and I wonder why people didn't write much about Jesus? Maybe it's because they were threatened to be NAILED TO A WOODEN CROSS. All but one of the disciples were torchered and killed.
Oh - same source - Why don't you do a bit of independent research from unbiased sources:
:lol: Said the guy who cited nothing but Wikipedia! Also, I gave two sources, each one loaded with sources of their own. The conspiracyscience one WASN'T BIASED AT ALL.
Tamuz - death and re-birth
Horus - God's living earthly encarnation.
Vedic Indian roots - Brhamism
Mithratic baptism, heaven and hell, ;ast judgement
"English atheist." Very unbiased.:roll:
I do know that it means conversion by the assumption of another religions rituals and ceremonies - akin to drawing on the traditions of previous religions. :lol:
Yes, but not making up new figures who, by not existing, changed the world.:lol:
I know that hellenism shares theophagy, baptism and "many religious ideas, ethical principles and spiritual elements" (from here)
And?
Note - all my links are from impartial sites
Like hell they are."English atheist?" "About.com?"
- rather than anchors from the same page of some partisan propaganda machine.
Um, that "partisan propaganda machine" is a website dedicated to debunking conspiracies with science; hence the name, "conspiracyscience." The author of that website, as I have told you, is not a Christian apologist or even a Christian!:lol:
Argument ad-populum - once more. I would nave thought a minority of religious scholars would be secular!
Pro-tip: People can study religion without being religious.The historical consensus; as in, the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community, NOT just "religious scholars," is that Jesus DID exist. You cannot deny that. And it is not an argument ad populum, as I am citing authorities, not just random webpages or wikipedia articles.
To have doubt is healthy.
The point that you ignored: The fact that ten "historians" say "no" while ten thousand say "yes"to the existence ofJesus does not give credibility to your ten "historians."
.
I was referring to your ad-populum fallacy regarding most historians agree...
Which they do.
I know it is easy to get mixed up when you cut peoples quotes and change the colours, I suggest you use proper quotes from now on and respond in 1 lump. You can use numbers if you like.
I'll respond how I like and am able. I am not responding to you out of context.
All of those writings were made decades after Jesus died.
Guess what? The same goes for Alexander the Great!:lol: That has nothing to do with historiography. By this standard, Socrates didn't exist.:lol:
Most of the authors you cite were not even born then.
Again, irrelevant to historiography.
Third hand hear-say dated evidence is not credible.
Oh, then we're not allowed to write about the Civil War now?:lol:
There is also reightful suspicion over some Roman texts that have clearly been altered.
*Yawn* Blank claim is blank.
You must also bear in mind the sheer dearth of writing about Jesus made at the time - a time when documentation was usual.
Socrates.
No - I investigate using impartial sources of information -
Like English atheists.
rather than rushing to the latest neo-Christian page of venom against nay-sayers.
Conspiracyscience is secular.:roll: I used one tekton article; and he is completely right.
The Christ myth crap was popularised before Christ.
Logical contradiction there.
diz360
[QUOTE="diz360"]Oh - same source - Why don't you do a bit of independent research from unbiased sources:
:lol: Said the guy who cited nothing but Wikipedia! Also, I gave two sources, each one loaded with sources of their own. The conspiracyscience one WASN'T BIASED AT ALL.
Tamuz - death and re-birth
Horus - God's living earthly encarnation.
Vedic Indian roots - Brhamism
Mithratic baptism, heaven and hell, ;ast judgement
"English atheist." Very unbiased.:roll:
I do know that it means conversion by the assumption of another religions rituals and ceremonies - akin to drawing on the traditions of previous religions. :lol:
Yes, but not making up new figures who, by not existing, changed the world.:lol:
I know that hellenism shares theophagy, baptism and "many religious ideas, ethical principles and spiritual elements" (from here)
And?
Note - all my links are from impartial sites
Like hell they are."English atheist?" "About.com?"
- rather than anchors from the same page of some partisan propaganda machine.
Um, that "partisan propaganda machine" is a website dedicated to debunking conspiracies with science; hence the name, "conspiracyscience." The author of that website, as I have told you, is not a Christian apologist or even a Christian!:lol:
Argument ad-populum - once more. I would nave thought a minority of religious scholars would be secular!
Pro-tip: People can study religion without being religious.The historical consensus; as in, the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community, NOT just "religious scholars," is that Jesus DID exist. You cannot deny that. And it is not an argument ad populum, as I am citing authorities, not just random webpages or wikipedia articles.
To have doubt is healthy.
The point that you ignored: The fact that ten "historians" say "no" while ten thousand say "yes"to the existence ofJesus does not give credibility to your ten "historians."
.
I was referring to your ad-populum fallacy regarding most historians agree...
Which they do.
I know it is easy to get mixed up when you cut peoples quotes and change the colours, I suggest you use proper quotes from now on and respond in 1 lump. You can use numbers if you like.
I'll respond how I like and am able. I am not responding to you out of context.
All of those writings were made decades after Jesus died.
Guess what? The same goes for Alexander the Great!:lol: That has nothing to do with historiography. By this standard, Socrates didn't exist.:lol:
Most of the authors you cite were not even born then.
Again, irrelevant to historiography.
Third hand hear-say dated evidence is not credible.
Oh, then we're not allowed to write about the Civil War now?:lol:
There is also reightful suspicion over some Roman texts that have clearly been altered.
*Yawn* Blank claim is blank.
You must also bear in mind the sheer dearth of writing about Jesus made at the time - a time when documentation was usual.
Socrates.
No - I investigate using impartial sources of information -
Like English atheists.
rather than rushing to the latest neo-Christian page of venom against nay-sayers.
Conspiracyscience is secular.:roll: I used one tekton article; and he is completely right.
The Christ myth crap was popularised before Christ.
Logical contradiction there.
Theokhoth
Pretty colors.
[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Tim_Q"]Uhh, no one disputes whether Jesus once lived or not, in fact, they don't even dispute whether he said the things he said. I'm sure he said he was god and all that.
Lansdowne5
Yes they do.
From your article:
I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this.
That is bull and nothing more than a sorely misinformed opinion. It also invokes a fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem and appeal to motive.
That was a snippet from a long dialogue about the subject. It clearly shows that your proposition that "No-one disputes whether Jesus lived" to be entirely fallacious.
Additionally, since I don't believe that Jesus as described in the bible existed, your statement is proven incorrect.
Ever heard of Gaalyah Cornfield? Gary Habermas?
Everything Cornelius Tacitus said about Jesus, matched exactly with what the Gospels say. Plus, he was considered the greatest of all Roman Historians, and he wasn't a Christian.
I suggest you read what he wrote about the origin of the word "Christian" and about the man whose name it came from - "Christus".
Then once done, cross reference with what Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian all wrote about him.
Yup, but their opinions don't sway me. they both seem defensive and biased. I recall Habermass using totally unbelievable statistics.
Tacitus and the other Romas you speak of weren't around until well after Jesus alledgedly died, so I can't see how their writings could be authoritative on the subject. I wonder why Jesus wasn't mentioned in more than the few much later (and of clearly disputed) periodicals you evidence.
They're not biased because they're not flipping Christians.
The gospels weren't written until well after Jesus had died. Oh and I wonder why people didn't write much about Jesus? Maybe it's because they were threatened to be NAILED TO A WOODEN CROSS. All but one of the disciples were torchered and killed.
I think Dr Gary is slightly religious...
Romans needn't have feared crucifiction - and they were the people documenting all aspects of the Judean civilisation at that time, especially radical groups of rebels.
What evidence do you have that the disciples were all tortured and killed? Hypolitus(AD 170 - AD 236)?
:|It's not a question of whether he existed. It's a question of whether he was the son of god.NecroKvltMuffin
I completely agree with this statement.
Romans needn't have feared crucifiction - and they were the people documenting all aspects of the Judean civilisation at that time, especially radical groups of rebels.
diz360
Tacitus.
Josephus.
No, they didn't live during that time. But that is irrelevant. If it were somehow an argument, then we'd have reason to believe Socrates, Alexander the Great and Gameliel the Younger did not exist, along with a slew of other historical characters.
Of course Jesus existed.Theokhoth
QFT.
"Jesus is a lie! For the truth lies within Raptor Jesus"
-Book of T-Rex 6:14
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="diz360"]:lol: Said the guy who cited nothing but Wikipedia! Also, I gave two sources, each one loaded with sources of their own. The conspiracyscience one WASN'T BIASED AT ALL.
My links were clearly from a wide variety of sites. Anyone reading this thread can see the shared source of information you gave to try refuting the previous religious influence question. It's pointless posturing about it.
"English atheist." Very unbiased.:roll:How do you know this? I've searched his site and can find no indication of this. And UK too? Are you sure you're not making this up too?
Yes, but not making up new figures who, by not existing, changed the world.:lol:
Absolutely it is - or was. The world's changing without all that now, thankfully.
And?
So, you seem to agere that Hellenism does share many traits with Christianity. Why is this?
Like hell they are."English atheist?" "About.com?"
Anyone that cares to click them will see the links go to many useful sites. Where did you get the "English atheist" from? I dispute I linked to that site. I thought you did with your conspiracy science site.
Um, that "partisan propaganda machine" is a website dedicated to debunking conspiracies with science; hence the name, "conspiracyscience." The author of that website, as I have told you, is not a Christian apologist or even a Christian!:lol:
How do you know this? I would be fairly convinced he is a Christian. To deny some of the patent truths as hs does on his site must take some great faith.
Pro-tip: People can study religion without being religious.The historical consensus; as in, the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community, NOT just "religious scholars," is that Jesus DID exist. You cannot deny that. And it is not an argument ad populum, as I am citing authorities, not just random webpages or wikipedia articles.
Of course I can deny this rubbish. There are plenty of historians that see no credible evidence of Jesus Christ. How can you say the ENTIRE HISTORICAL community - a clearly crazy, false and ranting response (and an ad-populum fallacy) without accounting for historians of other or no faith.
The point that you ignored: The fact that ten "historians" say "no" while ten thousand say "yes"to the existence ofJesus does not give credibility to your ten "historians."Neither, by virtue of the ad-populum fallacy, does yours. Proof can only be made positively since disproof is a logical fallacy. It means the burden of proof is on the extant amd the rational position is skeptical.
Which they do.
Christian indifference is on the rise, so maybe not for much longer!
I'll respond how I like and am able. I am not responding to you out of context.
I know I have to be aware of your ability. Yes, you were - as I described.
Guess what? The same goes for Alexander the Great!:lol: That has nothing to do with historiography. By this standard, Socrates didn't exist.:lol:
Tosh - look at the immense amount of evidence discovered for Alex the Great, like in archaeology of the time. The writings about him were far more comprehensive and from far more varied sources, as they would have been, considering his conquests.
Again, irrelevant to historiography.
Well, that makes historiography and inexact and interpretive method then. Why pin your faith on it?
Oh, then we're not allowed to write about the Civil War now?:lol:
I'm just assigning credibility to evidence. Would I believe something someone told someone else over 50 years ago?
*Yawn* Blank claim is blank.
I'm tired of your reluctance to see the obvious errors in the re-write too.
Socrates.
Plato hung out with him and therefore had first hand experience That's eye-witness testimony!Like English atheists.
English atheists. English atheists. Pieces of 8 - Sqwark!
Conspiracyscience is secular.:roll: I used one tekton article; and he is completely right.
How do you know? - and how do you know?
Logical contradiction there.
Not necessarily. The myth often precedes the man!
-Jiggles-
Pretty colors.
Rather a dull and circular debate though. It seems that you accept the Hellenistic origins of Christianity, yet still deny Chritianity has been based on the myths of previous religions.
[QUOTE="diz360"]Romans needn't have feared crucifiction - and they were the people documenting all aspects of the Judean civilisation at that time, especially radical groups of rebels.
Theokhoth
Tacitus.
Josephus.
No, they didn't live during that time. But that is irrelevant. If it were somehow an argument, then we'd have reason to believe Socrates, Alexander the Great and Gameliel the Younger did not exist, along with a slew of other historical characters.
They both were written some 50 years after Jesus' alledged death and share a mistake in the job title of Procurator for Pilate. They writing style of the passages referring to Jesus are out of the context of one of the authors. It has been evidenced that early Christian scribes changed much documentation as the early church created its doctrine.
Why wouldn't the Romans have noticed Jesus? He was supposed to be preaching to audiences of 5000 and more (by accounts), so must have been a big topic for Roman discussion at the time.
We have archaeology from the Alexander the Great, naming the date of his death. Accounts of his actions come from a greater number of independent sources. Evidence for Socrates comes from Plato's writings from the time of his life.
There is far more direct evidence of Socrates or Alexander the Great then there is of Jesus.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment