Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 03:57 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 03:36 PM)Free Wrote: And if the claim is "Jesus was a myth," then evidence needs to be provided to support that position.

It's a claim. Period.

To support that claim you would need to find a plausible origin, and historical evidence to support that origin. Then you create a hypothesis, and with more evidence you can graduate it to a realistic and plausible theory.

Currently my position on the HJ issue is that it's a plausible theory and that it provides a good argument supporting the probability of an actual human being.

Therefore, since the MJ position makes the claim of Jesus being a wholesale myth, it needs to follow the historical method and demonstrate a plausible theory to adequately compete with the HJ position.

That's exactly how to properly and professionally cast sufficient doubt upon the HJ position; you create another plausible theory based upon actual evidence.

Let me give you an example:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels?

2. Internal biblical evidence indicates Paul's letters preceded the Gospels.

3. Paul mentions Jesus at the Last Supper. Did the Gospels quote from the works of Paul in regards to the Last Supper?

4. Since we have the evidence listed above in 1, 2, and 3, does it not show that Paul may very well be the origin of the Christian religion?

5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel  and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels.

6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate.

7. Paul was a Roman, and all of Tacitus' sources indicate a Roman origin. Tacitus also mentions in the same sentence of a "mischievous superstition" breaking out in Judea concerning the execution of Christ.

8. To the Roman's the existence of Christ is a Jewish myth. Tacitus had a curious habit of making tongue-in-cheek comments in a humorous way, so his mentioning of the execution of a mythical creature may very well have been another if his attempts at infusing some humor into his works, and refers to the result of it all as being mischievous superstition.

See how this works? That's how you create a working hypothesis from actual historical records in an effort to present an alternative plausible view of the origins of Christinaity.

And from there you keep working at it until it gains credulity. It takes the MJ position and elevates its credibility by merely using the available evidence for HJ and instead uses the same evidence to dispute a HJ. 

Denying that evidence exists is just stupid when you can use the same evidence to support a credible alternative view.

Everything I said from 1 to 8 above are things supported by actual historical evidence.

That's how history works.

Does it even OCCUR to you that none of your arguments are based on any evidence at all?  And do you realize that all the biblical texts were written after the supposed fact?

What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list. The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles). The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential. While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".

Rather opposing stories...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 03:57 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Does it even OCCUR to you that none of your arguments are based on any evidence at all?  And do you realize that all the biblical texts were written after the supposed fact?

What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

You read nothing, verified nothing, and your opinion amounts to nothing. Here's the very first thing:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels?

Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarl...c-gospels/

https://forums.catholic.com/t/were-st-pa...s/281481/2

Try researching instead of asserting, dumbass.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 04:42 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote: What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

You read nothing, verified nothing, and your opinion amounts to nothing. Here's the very first thing:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels?

Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarl...c-gospels/

https://forums.catholic.com/t/were-st-pa...s/281481/2

Try researching instead of asserting, dumbass.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Did you miss the part of the link that said "although authorship of some is in dispute"? And the part about "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" without realizing that "earliest" is not "contemporary"?

You keep arguing by "claim" rather than "evidence". It is all circular and you can't tell the difference.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • brunumb
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels.

Actually he doesn't. He says from where he "received it".

Quote:6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate.

Harry Potter mentions Rowena Ravenclaw. We know Harry got to Hogwarts on a train from London.

There actually is no evidence that any of the Pauline literature, (either the fake letters, or any real letters) was written before any gospels.
Test
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 05:51 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:42 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

You read nothing, verified nothing, and your opinion amounts to nothing. Here's the very first thing:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels?

Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarl...c-gospels/

https://forums.catholic.com/t/were-st-pa...s/281481/2

Try researching instead of asserting, dumbass.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Did you miss the part of the link that said "although authorship of some is in dispute"?  And the part about "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" without realizing that "earliest" is not "contemporary"?

You keep arguing by "claim" rather than "evidence".  It is all circular and you can't tell the difference.

And can you differentiate between "authorship of some is in dispute" has no bearing on the fact that no matter who wrote them, they still predate the Gospels? We can put any name we want to these letters, and it won't change one iota. Whether written by paul or anyone else, they still demonstrate the same theme prior to the Gospels.

And can you differentiate between "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" and the consensus on the earliest dating of at least one Gospel around AD 68 - 72 that since the person who wrote that Gospel was most likely a contemporary, and if all the letters written by Paul or anyone else predate THAT Gospel, it most certainly indicates very strongly a contemporaneous source?

By "contemporary" they do not mean it was written at or during the time of Christ. It means a person who lived at the same time as Christ wrote them some years afterwards.

Here is the dating of all those letters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_ep...thenticity

Virtually all of them are dated to within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus, with at least 1 of them less than 2 decades after.

And since I am arguing for a Mythical Jesus, your assertion of a contemporaneous source is absolutely fucking meaningless ... unless of course you are now arguing for a historical Jesus?

FFS dude ...

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel  and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels.

Actually he doesn't. He says from where he "received it".

Quote:6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate.

Harry Potter mentions Rowena Ravenclaw. We know Harry got to Hogwarts on a train from London.

There actually is no evidence that any of the Pauline literature, (either the fake letters, or any real letters) was written before any gospels.

Rom_16:25  Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, having been unvoiced during eternal times;

2Ti_2:8  Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Anything else?

The dating is based wholly upon the consensus, and with study, I determined the consensus to be accurate.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Free, you regurgitate the same shit that the early church liars put out and pronounce it "gospel."  When the fuck will you get your head out of your ass?

"Well, PAUL SAID...."  Really.  Where are the originals of what this fucker said and when were they written?  You are such a schlub on this stuff.

Do you also think that Trump didn't try to extort Ukraine because he "said so?"  Wake up, son.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:39 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Free, you regurgitate the same shit that the early church liars put out and pronounce it "gospel."  When the fuck will you get your head out of your ass?

"Well, PAUL SAID...."  Really.  Where are the originals of what this fucker said and when were they written?  You are such a schlub on this stuff.

Can you prove that anything I have said in my points 1 - 8 is not evidenced by the ancient records?

Remember now, I am arguing for a MYTHICAL Jesus, not a historical one.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:18 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 05:51 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:42 PM)Free Wrote: You read nothing, verified nothing, and your opinion amounts to nothing. Here's the very first thing:

1. Which came first, the letters of Paul, or the Gospels?

Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarl...c-gospels/

https://forums.catholic.com/t/were-st-pa...s/281481/2

Try researching instead of asserting, dumbass.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Did you miss the part of the link that said "although authorship of some is in dispute"?  And the part about "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" without realizing that "earliest" is not "contemporary"?

You keep arguing by "claim" rather than "evidence".  It is all circular and you can't tell the difference.

And can you differentiate between "authorship of some is in dispute" has no bearing on the fact that no matter who wrote them, they still predate the Gospels? We can put any name we want to these letters, and it won't change one iota. Whether written by paul or anyone else, they still demonstrate the same theme prior to the Gospels.

And can you differentiate between "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" and the consensus on the earliest dating of at least one Gospel around AD 68 - 72 that since the person who wrote that Gospel was most likely a contemporary, and if all the letters written by Paul or anyone else predate THAT Gospel, it most certainly indicates very strongly a contemporaneous source?

By "contemporary" they do not mean it was written at or during the time of Christ. It means a person who lived at the same time as Christ wrote them some years afterwards.

Here is the dating of all those letters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_ep...thenticity

Virtually all of them are dated to within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus, with at least 1 of them less than 2 decades after.

Free, you might be surprised to learn that I don't doubt your beliefs in the least bit.  Beliefs go back to the earliest times of human thought.  The earliest of us sought to understand the world (and death) as best they could.  

But much of what you consider biblical is much older.  Ancient people feared and sufferred local floods (which were to them all the world).  Ancient people feared death and tried to understand it as a gift from difficult lives (sometimes) or a penalty for not satisfying the gods (sometimes).  

No religion makes sense.  And when the god seems to be punishing, people think they have done something wrong.  And they make rules to follow to try and make the god happy and kindly again.  

You can't make an unhappy god that doesn't exist happy.  You can throw virgins into the volcano, you can refuse to eat certain foods, you can built towering structures to either reach it or honor it.  But you can't happify that which isn't real.  

Consider your ten commandments.  The first are all meaningless to a functional society (although a day of rest is not  bad idea when people had to work so hard to survive).  But the latter ones aren't.  It doesn't require a deity to tell people learning to live in groups not to kill or steal or ignore your elders.  

That's just what humans learned as they collected together.  Humans aren't stupid;  they understand what it takes to live together.  We didn't do it because some all powerful deity told us to.  We did it because those who didn't understand the basic requirements of living together died out in the harsh world.

I really don't care if there was  Jesus or Mahhamed or Buddha.  There have always been people who sought to help people live in the world they knew.  And GOOD FOR THEM.  There are people like that now.

But they aren't gods, children of a god, or messengers of a god.  There are no deities.  It is up to us to make something of ourselves.  We succeed or not, and it is up to us.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:53 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:18 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 05:51 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Did you miss the part of the link that said "although authorship of some is in dispute"?  And the part about "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" without realizing that "earliest" is not "contemporary"?

You keep arguing by "claim" rather than "evidence".  It is all circular and you can't tell the difference.

And can you differentiate between "authorship of some is in dispute" has no bearing on the fact that no matter who wrote them, they still predate the Gospels? We can put any name we want to these letters, and it won't change one iota. Whether written by paul or anyone else, they still demonstrate the same theme prior to the Gospels.

And can you differentiate between "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" and the consensus on the earliest dating of at least one Gospel around AD 68 - 72 that since the person who wrote that Gospel was most likely a contemporary, and if all the letters written by Paul or anyone else predate THAT Gospel, it most certainly indicates very strongly a contemporaneous source?

By "contemporary" they do not mean it was written at or during the time of Christ. It means a person who lived at the same time as Christ wrote them some years afterwards.

Here is the dating of all those letters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_ep...thenticity

Virtually all of them are dated to within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus, with at least 1 of them less than 2 decades after.

Free, you might be surprised to learn that I don't doubt your beliefs in the least bit.  Beliefs go back to the earliest times of human thought.  The earliest of us sought to understand the world (and death) as best they could.  

But much of what you consider biblical is much older.  Ancient people feared and sufferred local floods (which were to them all the world).  Ancient people feared death and tried to understand it as a gift from difficult lives (sometimes) or a penalty for not satisfying the gods (sometimes).  

No religion makes sense.  And when the god seems to be punishing, people think they have done something wrong.  And they make rules to follow to try and make the god happy and kindly again.  

You can't make an unhappy god that doesn't exist happy.  You can throw virgins into the volcano, you can refuse to eat certain foods, you can built towering structures to either reach it or honor it.  But you can't happify that which isn't real.  

Consider your ten commandments.  The first are all meaningless to a functional society (although a day of rest is not  bad idea when people had to work so hard to survive).  But the latter ones aren't.  It doesn't require a deity to tell people learning to live in groups not to kill or steal or ignore your elders.  

That's just what humans learned as they collected together.  Humans aren't stupid;  they understand what it takes to live together.  We didn't do it because some all powerful deity told us to.  We did it because those who didn't understand the basic requirements of living together died out in the harsh world.

I really don't care if there was  Jesus or Mahhamed or Buddha.  There have always been people who sought to help people live in the world they knew.  And GOOD FOR THEM.  There are people like that now.

But they aren't gods, children of a god, or messengers of a god.  There are no deities.  It is up to us to make something of ourselves.  We succeed or not, and it is up to us.


Dude ...

There are no gods. There is no possibility of anything supernatural existing. As an atheist, I make the positive claim that any god, especially the one in the Bible, does not, and cannot exist.

[Image: GW350H350]

On the Dawkins scale above I am a 7. There is no room for doubt with me. When I claim there is no god, I have evidence to support it.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:58 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:53 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:18 PM)Free Wrote: And can you differentiate between "authorship of some is in dispute" has no bearing on the fact that no matter who wrote them, they still predate the Gospels? We can put any name we want to these letters, and it won't change one iota. Whether written by paul or anyone else, they still demonstrate the same theme prior to the Gospels.

And can you differentiate between "Among these letters are some of the earliest extant Christian documents" and the consensus on the earliest dating of at least one Gospel around AD 68 - 72 that since the person who wrote that Gospel was most likely a contemporary, and if all the letters written by Paul or anyone else predate THAT Gospel, it most certainly indicates very strongly a contemporaneous source?

By "contemporary" they do not mean it was written at or during the time of Christ. It means a person who lived at the same time as Christ wrote them some years afterwards.

Here is the dating of all those letters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_ep...thenticity

Virtually all of them are dated to within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus, with at least 1 of them less than 2 decades after.

Free, you might be surprised to learn that I don't doubt your beliefs in the least bit.  Beliefs go back to the earliest times of human thought.  The earliest of us sought to understand the world (and death) as best they could.  

But much of what you consider biblical is much older.  Ancient people feared and sufferred local floods (which were to them all the world).  Ancient people feared death and tried to understand it as a gift from difficult lives (sometimes) or a penalty for not satisfying the gods (sometimes).  

No religion makes sense.  And when the god seems to be punishing, people think they have done something wrong.  And they make rules to follow to try and make the god happy and kindly again.  

You can't make an unhappy god that doesn't exist happy.  You can throw virgins into the volcano, you can refuse to eat certain foods, you can built towering structures to either reach it or honor it.  But you can't happify that which isn't real.  

Consider your ten commandments.  The first are all meaningless to a functional society (although a day of rest is not  bad idea when people had to work so hard to survive).  But the latter ones aren't.  It doesn't require a deity to tell people learning to live in groups not to kill or steal or ignore your elders.  

That's just what humans learned as they collected together.  Humans aren't stupid;  they understand what it takes to live together.  We didn't do it because some all powerful deity told us to.  We did it because those who didn't understand the basic requirements of living together died out in the harsh world.

I really don't care if there was  Jesus or Mahhamed or Buddha.  There have always been people who sought to help people live in the world they knew.  And GOOD FOR THEM.  There are people like that now.

But they aren't gods, children of a god, or messengers of a god.  There are no deities.  It is up to us to make something of ourselves.  We succeed or not, and it is up to us.


Dude ...

There are no gods. There is no possibility of anything supernatural existing. As an atheist, I make the positive claim that any god, especially the one in the Bible, does not, and cannot exist.

[Image: GW350H350]

On the Dawkins scale above I am a 7. There is no room for doubt with me. When I claim there is no god, I have evidence to support it.

Let's say I'm 6.9 What evidence?
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:5. Paul makes the claim of him creating a Gospel  and also complains about worshippers wasting time on genealogies. This demonstrates the first and earliest mention of a written Gospel which includes genealogies, which is what we see in the current Gospels.

Actually he doesn't. He says from where he "received it".

Quote:6. Paul's works mention Pilate, therefore we have a connection from Paul about his Jesus and Pilate.

Harry Potter mentions Rowena Ravenclaw. We know Harry got to Hogwarts on a train from London.

There actually is no evidence that any of the Pauline literature, (either the fake letters, or any real letters) was written before any gospels.

Rom_16:25  Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, having been unvoiced during eternal times;

2Ti_2:8  Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Anything else?

The dating is based wholly upon the consensus, and with study, I determined the consensus to be accurate.

So you have nothing except consensus. LOL

Gallatians 1: 11-12
"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Just to help you out. Paul (if he even existed) would be a human. In fact he said he DIDN'T write a gospel.
Do try a bit harder next time.
Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Cavebear, mordant
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 03:57 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Does it even OCCUR to you that none of your arguments are based on any evidence at all?  And do you realize that all the biblical texts were written after the supposed fact?

What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

How can he be beheaded and crucified simultaneously bruv? That's fucked up and shit.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually he doesn't. He says from where he "received it".


Harry Potter mentions Rowena Ravenclaw. We know Harry got to Hogwarts on a train from London.

There actually is no evidence that any of the Pauline literature, (either the fake letters, or any real letters) was written before any gospels.

Rom_16:25  Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, having been unvoiced during eternal times;

2Ti_2:8  Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Anything else?

The dating is based wholly upon the consensus, and with study, I determined the consensus to be accurate.

So you have nothing except consensus. LOL

The educated consensus uses rationality, reasoning, and internal evidence to make that determination and I agree with it.

Quote:Gallatians 1: 11-12

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Just to help you out. Paul (if he even existed) would be a human. In fact he said he DIDN'T write a gospel.
Do try a bit harder next time.

The text above tells you what he preached and from where he claims he received it, but ... where does it say he never also wrote a Gospel? And how do you deal with the following;

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:34 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote: What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

How can he be beheaded and crucified simultaneously bruv? That's fucked up and shit.

He has actually confused the church traditions of Paul and Peter. Supposedly, Paul was beheaded, and Peter crucified upside down.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:34 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:31 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Free Wrote: What has occurred to me is that you haven't checked out a single thing in my 1 to 8 list because I know that if you did you would know that everything I said is actually supported by historical records and historical consensus.

So, you know, there's that. And if Min or Bucky are any good at all with this they will acknowledge that everything I said is factually demonstrable.

I did read your list.  The illogic was rather painful (laughing hard is not good for rib muscles).  The problem is that nothing you offer is actually evidential.  While there are no actual civic records about Paul, according to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, "Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero", "The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul's death", and "he was crucified upside down".  

Rather opposing stories...

How can he be beheaded and crucified simultaneously bruv? That's fucked up and shit.

Various tales about Paul, the travelling salesman. If they couldn't get THAT right...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:06 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:58 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:53 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Free, you might be surprised to learn that I don't doubt your beliefs in the least bit.  Beliefs go back to the earliest times of human thought.  The earliest of us sought to understand the world (and death) as best they could.  

But much of what you consider biblical is much older.  Ancient people feared and sufferred local floods (which were to them all the world).  Ancient people feared death and tried to understand it as a gift from difficult lives (sometimes) or a penalty for not satisfying the gods (sometimes).  

No religion makes sense.  And when the god seems to be punishing, people think they have done something wrong.  And they make rules to follow to try and make the god happy and kindly again.  

You can't make an unhappy god that doesn't exist happy.  You can throw virgins into the volcano, you can refuse to eat certain foods, you can built towering structures to either reach it or honor it.  But you can't happify that which isn't real.  

Consider your ten commandments.  The first are all meaningless to a functional society (although a day of rest is not  bad idea when people had to work so hard to survive).  But the latter ones aren't.  It doesn't require a deity to tell people learning to live in groups not to kill or steal or ignore your elders.  

That's just what humans learned as they collected together.  Humans aren't stupid;  they understand what it takes to live together.  We didn't do it because some all powerful deity told us to.  We did it because those who didn't understand the basic requirements of living together died out in the harsh world.

I really don't care if there was  Jesus or Mahhamed or Buddha.  There have always been people who sought to help people live in the world they knew.  And GOOD FOR THEM.  There are people like that now.

But they aren't gods, children of a god, or messengers of a god.  There are no deities.  It is up to us to make something of ourselves.  We succeed or not, and it is up to us.


Dude ...

There are no gods. There is no possibility of anything supernatural existing. As an atheist, I make the positive claim that any god, especially the one in the Bible, does not, and cannot exist.

[Image: GW350H350]

On the Dawkins scale above I am a 7. There is no room for doubt with me. When I claim there is no god, I have evidence to support it.

Let's say I'm 6.9  What evidence?

It's called the Evidence of Absence.  

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

The argument works like this:

There are two employees in a meeting hall setting up chairs for a meeting, one is a supervisor and the other a laborer. The supervisor tells the laborer to go into an adjoining room and get a stack of chairs. The laborer goes into that room, and sees no chairs at all. He tells his supervisor "There are no chairs in that room."

Another laborer shows up, and the supervisor- after doubting the claim of the first laborer, tells the 2nd laborer to go into the same room and get a  stack of chairs. The 2nd laborer does as he is told, but also sees that there are no chairs in that room. He returns to the supervisor and tells him the same thing the 1st laborer said. More and more laborers show up, and each one is sent to the same room to get a stack of chairs, and all of them return to the supervisor and tell him there are no chairs in the room. Finally the supervisor goes into the room and also finds it completely empty.

After numerous failed attempts by numerous individuals to get chairs from that room, and each one saying the room has no chairs in it and that the room is completely empty, should we conclude it as being possible that there are chairs in the room?

No, we reasonably and logically conclude there are no chairs in that room. We can enter that room and see that the evidence of the absence of chairs is the evidence of absence required to confirm the non existence of chairs in that room.

Likewise for any god or any supernatural entity. Throughout history, there have been numerous attempts to prove the existence of god, but at the end of the day all we have is the god who wasn't there. No one in history has ever provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate even the possibility of the existence of god.

When people say that the existence of god is possible, even remotely possible, they are making a positive claim of the existence of a possibility. They are therefore required to prove how and why that possibility is valid. Just saying it's possible does not make it so. Evidence to support that possibility, however remote, is still required to qualify it as valid.

Hence, you have exactly the same problem with proving the possibility of the existence of a god as you do with proving the actual existence of god. Both are positive claims, and without evidence to support either, you have nothing but assertion.

Therefore, if you are a 6.9, then what evidence can you provide that supports that shred of doubt that keeps you from being a 7.0? Since there is absolutely no evidence at all, thereby you have no reason whatsoever to not be a 7.0.

It it possible I could be wrong? Only if you show me the evidence to make such a possibility valid. Until then, I am correct and justified at being a 7.0 since there is no valid possibility in existence. Therefore, it is the most honest position to hold.


Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:Can you prove that anything I have said in my points 1 - 8 is not evidenced by the ancient records?

Remember now, I am arguing for a MYTHICAL Jesus, not a historical one.



Oh brother.  I read the paul shit and said "here he goes again."

Can it wait a while?  I'm really busy with dog rescue stuff today and dog shit is real..... unlike your jesus shit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 08:18 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Can you prove that anything I have said in my points 1 - 8 is not evidenced by the ancient records?

Remember now, I am arguing for a MYTHICAL Jesus, not a historical one.



Oh brother.  I read the paul shit and said "here he goes again."

Can it wait a while?  I'm really busy with dog rescue stuff today and dog shit is real..... unlike your jesus shit.

As I always say ... take all the time you need.

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:56 PM)Free Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 07:06 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 06:58 PM)Free Wrote: Dude ...

There are no gods. There is no possibility of anything supernatural existing. As an atheist, I make the positive claim that any god, especially the one in the Bible, does not, and cannot exist.

[Image: GW350H350]

On the Dawkins scale above I am a 7. There is no room for doubt with me. When I claim there is no god, I have evidence to support it.

Let's say I'm 6.9  What evidence?

It's called the Evidence of Absence.  

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

The argument works like this:

There are two employees in a meeting hall setting up chairs for a meeting, one is a supervisor and the other a laborer. The supervisor tells the laborer to go into an adjoining room and get a stack of chairs. The laborer goes into that room, and sees no chairs at all. He tells his supervisor "There are no chairs in that room."

Another laborer shows up, and the supervisor- after doubting the claim of the first laborer, tells the 2nd laborer to go into the same room and get a  stack of chairs. The 2nd laborer does as he is told, but also sees that there are no chairs in that room. He returns to the supervisor and tells him the same thing the 1st laborer said. More and more laborers show up, and each one is sent to the same room to get a stack of chairs, and all of them return to the supervisor and tell him there are no chairs in the room. Finally the supervisor goes into the room and also finds it completely empty.

After numerous failed attempts by numerous individuals to get chairs from that room, and each one saying the room has no chairs in it and that the room is completely empty, should we conclude it as being possible that there are chairs in the room?

No, we reasonably and logically conclude there are no chairs in that room. We can enter that room and see that the evidence of the absence of chairs is the evidence of absence required to confirm the non existence of chairs in that room.

Likewise for any god or any supernatural entity. Throughout history, there have been numerous attempts to prove the existence of god, but at the end of the day all we have is the god who wasn't there. No one in history has ever provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate even the possibility of the existence of god.

When people say that the existence of god is possible, even remotely possible, they are making a positive claim of the existence of a possibility. They are therefore required to prove how and why that possibility is valid. Just saying it's possible does not make it so. Evidence to support that possibility, however remote, is still required to qualify it as valid.

Hence, you have exactly the same problem with proving the possibility of the existence of a god as you do with proving the actual existence of god. Both are positive claims, and without evidence to support either, you have nothing but assertion.

Therefore, if you are a 6.9, then what evidence can you provide that supports that shred of doubt that keeps you from being a 7.0? Since there is absolutely no evidence at all, thereby you have no reason whatsoever to not be a 7.0.

It it possible I could be wrong? Only if you show me the evidence to make such a possibility valid. Until then, I am correct and justified at being a 7.0 since there is no valid possibility in existence. Therefore, it is the most honest position to hold.


Thumbs Up
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
The argument from silence is a logical fallacy. An absence of evidence certainly implies (suggests) absence. What it does not do is prove it.

A thing may not be claimed to be true because it cannot be proved to be false. A thing may not be claimed to be false because it cannot be proved to be true. (see"Russells Teapot), below)

As far as I'm aware ,claims about god are unfalsifiable. IER they cannot be proved or disproved .

God cannot be argued into or out of existence. This because logic is not a reliable tool for establishing truth. A logical inference may be said to be true IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

The only proof this atheist will accept for any claim about god are empirical evidence. I have no idea what evidence will suffice. Not my problem,I'm not the one making a positive claim . The claim "there is no god" is an affirming claim and hence a positive claim .

You believe what you like; it makes no practical difference to me on e way or t'other

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

THIS explains my own position, except that I expand my position to include any and all gods. :

"In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


"Proving a negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11] "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Free
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 09:05 PM)grympy Wrote: A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11] "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

And that is my whole point. The Evidence of Absence argument is sufficient enough to fulfill the burden of proof for the negative claim of "There are no supernatural gods."

I also often use the proof of impossibility position as well. It just provides an extra layer of support. An example of the proof of impossibility is my post about all this to Cavebear, in which we have repeated attempts to prove the existence of chairs in a room, with each attempt proving to be impossible. Those repeated attempts, which have a 100% failure rate, demonstrate that it is impossible for any chairs to be in that room.

It's like trying to square the circle. It simply can't be done.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
An older link, but Author suggest Jesus never existed after finding no mention of him in historical texts
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(12-15-2019, 07:56 PM)Free Wrote: It's called the Evidence of Absence.  

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

The argument works like this:

There are two employees in a meeting hall setting up chairs for a meeting, one is a supervisor and the other a laborer. The supervisor tells the laborer to go into an adjoining room and get a stack of chairs. The laborer goes into that room, and sees no chairs at all. He tells his supervisor "There are no chairs in that room."

Another laborer shows up, and the supervisor- after doubting the claim of the first laborer, tells the 2nd laborer to go into the same room and get a  stack of chairs. The 2nd laborer does as he is told, but also sees that there are no chairs in that room. He returns to the supervisor and tells him the same thing the 1st laborer said. More and more laborers show up, and each one is sent to the same room to get a stack of chairs, and all of them return to the supervisor and tell him there are no chairs in the room. Finally the supervisor goes into the room and also finds it completely empty.

After numerous failed attempts by numerous individuals to get chairs from that room, and each one saying the room has no chairs in it and that the room is completely empty, should we conclude it as being possible that there are chairs in the room?

No, we reasonably and logically conclude there are no chairs in that room. We can enter that room and see that the evidence of the absence of chairs is the evidence of absence required to confirm the non existence of chairs in that room.

Likewise for any god or any supernatural entity. Throughout history, there have been numerous attempts to prove the existence of god, but at the end of the day all we have is the god who wasn't there. No one in history has ever provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate even the possibility of the existence of god.

When people say that the existence of god is possible, even remotely possible, they are making a positive claim of the existence of a possibility. They are therefore required to prove how and why that possibility is valid. Just saying it's possible does not make it so. Evidence to support that possibility, however remote, is still required to qualify it as valid.

Hence, you have exactly the same problem with proving the possibility of the existence of a god as you do with proving the actual existence of god. Both are positive claims, and without evidence to support either, you have nothing but assertion.

Therefore, if you are a 6.9, then what evidence can you provide that supports that shred of doubt that keeps you from being a 7.0? Since there is absolutely no evidence at all, thereby you have no reason whatsoever to not be a 7.0.

It it possible I could be wrong? Only if you show me the evidence to make such a possibility valid. Until then, I am correct and justified at being a 7.0 since there is no valid possibility in existence. Therefore, it is the most honest position to hold.

The difference is that in your hypothetical, it's entirely possible for the supervisor to go into the room and see for himself, and indeed, even the underlings going in and reporting back are a good proxy for that. With supernatural, invisible deities, there's no actual room to even hold the chairs. There's just an alleged room. In another dimension.

My objection to theism is that it's specifically designed to be non-falsifiable, therefore, it is not even possible to prove OR disprove it. Therefore I have no views on the matter in terms of a knowledge claim, because knowledge is inherently unobtanium. I simply cannot form a belief concerning it, for lack of evidence to support it.

I can posit all sorts of fanciful things that technically COULD be true but cannot be demonstrated -- such as the existence of sentient lampshades cavorting on the fifth planet from Proxima Centauri. At this point we are only aware of one planet in that system to begin with, so there's no way to prove or disprove that. Of course, the claim is ridiculous enough that even if we discover that planet and explore it, we can be quite confident that the claim will be disproven. In that sense I am also 7+ on the Dawkins scale (which BTW I don't think is a valid scale as it gets the relationship between atheism and agnosticism wrong). But in a technical sense I have to remain a 6.9. Not that it's of any practical consequence either way.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Evidence of absence is precisely why Jesus does not exist.

Just saying.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)