"Jesus Certainly Existed" Three Reasons To Be Skeptical

subwax

Well-Known Member
A better debate would be how culpable major church sects are for the crimes their employees commit while employed by those churches and why, like organized crime,they are not being infiltrated and held accountable.
Yes - I agree with that completely. No question at all. I would be amazed if anyone here would argue that in the slightest.
 

Observe & Report

Well-Known Member
Well - if there was ever a statement that made a mockery of the bible, its that she had a baby without sex. That is biologically impossible. We have to cast aside this notion of faith, and look at reality. People do not give birth without first having intercourse.
 

subwax

Well-Known Member
interesting story you posted there - it is only a story though, and I don't think anyone should look at that as a form of proof at all. It mentions the word "story" and "tale", so best just consider it as someone's disturbed imagination.

We need facts, not anecdotes. Sadly, there is no proof of a Jesus, or indeed a god either.
 

Observe & Report

Well-Known Member
interesting story you posted there - it is only a story though, and I don't think anyone should look at that as a form of proof at all. It mentions the word "story" and "tale", so best just consider it as someone's disturbed imagination.
It's not a story it is a paper published in the British Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

In any event whether Jesus existed or not just isn't interesting and debating it is a waste of time. Proof he existed means as much as proof L. Ron Hubbard existed. It is to to distract you from the real issue, that the central proposition of Christianity is something we can test today and it is complete nonsense.

Nobody lives forever because they believe in Jesus, not even the Pope. It's such a ridiculous proposition that it has become synonymous with fairy tales.
 

subwax

Well-Known Member
It's not a story it is a paper published in the British Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

In any event whether Jesus existed or not just isn't interesting and debating it is a waste of time. Proof he existed means as much as proof L. Ron Hubbard existed. It is to to distract you from the real issue, that the central proposition of Christianity is something we can test today and it is complete nonsense.

Nobody lives forever because they believe in Jesus, not even the Pope. It's such a ridiculous proposition that it has become synonymous with fairy tales.
L Ron Hubbard did exist though.
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
In his video, Richard Carrier responds to a question there is a 1 in 3 chance Jesus existed.
If you read his book he goes through the evidence, and to get that 33% chance of Jesus existing he's being generous with certain aspects of said evidence.

Do you think the chance of 33% represents a "preponderance of evidence" putting aside Carrier's generosity?
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
In any event whether Jesus existed or not just isn't interesting and debating it is a waste of time. Proof he existed means as much as proof L. Ron Hubbard existed.
Yet you come here and clog up my thread with such an egregious, and fallacious a statement. We have writtings, video, and direct witnesses accounts of L Ron Hubbard. We have neither of these for Jesus.

Care to engage with this thread, or continue to loiter, and make fallacious statements?
 

Kerowacked

Well-Known Member
If you read his book he goes through the evidence, and to get that 33% chance of Jesus existing he's being generous with certain aspects of said evidence.

Do you think the chance of 33% represents a "preponderance of evidence" putting aside Carrier's generosity?
The preponderance of evidence that Carrier refers to is the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Josephus, the Talmud. How much of a theory does he put forth regurgitating others findings and then conclude theres a 33% chance? There are people who dispute the Holocaust too! Its 2,000 years ago so i can agree there is no photgraphic evidence but the preponderance of facts supports a historical Jesus. If you are a Seeker i suggest the Baha’i tablets, there is no disputing their authorship or translation. And to answer your quiz, Caiphus and the temple priests killed Jesus, Romans drove the nails but the Sanhedrin put Him there.
 
Last edited:

Nixs

Well-Known Member
interesting story you posted there - it is only a story though, and I don't think anyone should look at that as a form of proof at all. It mentions the word "story" and "tale", so best just consider it as someone's disturbed imagination.

We need facts, not anecdotes. Sadly, there is no proof of a Jesus, or indeed a god either.
Have you heard of the Qumran scrolls?


"In 1947, young Bedouin shepherds, searching for a stray goat in the Judean Desert, entered a long-untouched cave and found jars filled with ancient scrolls. That initial discovery by the Bedouins yielded seven scrolls and began a search that lasted nearly a decade and eventually produced thousands of scroll fragments from eleven caves. During those same years, archaeologists searching for a habitation close to the caves that might help identify the people who deposited the scrolls, excavated the Qumran ruin, a complex of structures located on a barren terrace between the cliffs where the caves are found and the Dead Sea. Within a fairly short time after their discovery, historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, as well as carbon-14 dating, established that the scrolls and the Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. They were indeed ancient! Coming from the late Second Temple Period, a time when Jesus of Nazareth lived, they are older than any other surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures by almost one thousand years."
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
1) The preponderance of evidence that Carrier refers to is the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Josephus, the Talmud. How much of a theory does he put forth regurgitating others findings and then conclude theres a 33% chance?

2) There are people who dispute the Holocaust too!

3) Its 2,000 years ago so i can agree there is no photgraphic evidence but the preponderance of facts supports a historical Jesus.

4) If you are a Seeker i suggest the Baha’i tablets, there is no disputing their authorship or translation.

5) And to answer your quiz, Caiphus and the temple priests killed Jesus, Romans drove the nails but the Sanhedrin put Him there.
1) The Gospels/Acts: These are not eyewitness accounts, and show high levels of literary artifice. This is standard in mainstream scholarship.

The Epistles: Paul is not a witness yet there's verses scholars point to that show an historical Jesus. But there's odd things that get ignored.

The works of Josephus (James passage/Testimonium Flavianum): Scholars point to these as evidence for Jesus. Faith based scholarship needs these to be true (other than the Bible). Without Josephus there's no mention of Jesus outside the NT in the 1st cenury CE. The James passage alternately could be an accidental scribal insertion of a marginal note from a phrase found in Matthew. The TF could be not just a partial forgery (main consensus), but entirely forged in the 4th century.

The Talmud: Very late. Read it, and find out when it places a Jesus. There's a reason Bart Ehrman does not use it for historicity.

Alternately instead of an historical Jesus the early Xtians perceived Jesus out of OT scripture, and had visions (dreams/hallucinations) of him. This Jesus took on Davidic flesh, got killed by Satan, and ressurected by God (all in a celestial realm). The first Gospel Mark is an allegory set on Earth, and influenced by Pauline theology. The other Gospels (see Synoptic Problem) led to a doctrinal war, and became to be believed to be history (while the original Xtians got pushed out as heretical).

2) Nice Straw Man on a thread that calls for skepticism not denial.

3) Looks like I have to break it down to you Sesame Street style (see #5).

4) I'm not a seeker of the Oxytocin Father, Serotonin Son, Holy Dopamine Ghost, or the Pedo-Prophet (Peebuh).

5) Here's two simple multiple choice questions for people that say Jesus certainly existed have trouble answering that logically follows in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote.

1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Note: Jesus empties his powers by taking on flesh being a slave to the elemental spirits (Gal. 4:8-9).

Philippians 2:7-8

NRSV

"but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross."

YLT

"but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,"

A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan

2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8

NRSV

"Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

YLT

"And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;"

A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan

Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them?

Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)?

Satan: Would Satan attack flesh? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality?

Hint: Remember that a physical flesh ressurection is not Pauline; 1 Cor. 15:50bc "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Zechariah 3:1-4 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Jesus standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Jesus was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel."'

Mark 14:51-52 "51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked."

Mark 16:5 "5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed."
 

Lenin1917

Well-Known Member
There was certainly nobody named Jesus in Roman era Palestine. Probably a bunch of yeshuahs but definitely no Jesus. Might even have been a dude name yeshuah that got crucified. Lots of dudes got crucified. The book, like all “holy” books is a work of fiction.
 

subwax

Well-Known Member
Have you heard of the Qumran scrolls?


"In 1947, young Bedouin shepherds, searching for a stray goat in the Judean Desert, entered a long-untouched cave and found jars filled with ancient scrolls. That initial discovery by the Bedouins yielded seven scrolls and began a search that lasted nearly a decade and eventually produced thousands of scroll fragments from eleven caves. During those same years, archaeologists searching for a habitation close to the caves that might help identify the people who deposited the scrolls, excavated the Qumran ruin, a complex of structures located on a barren terrace between the cliffs where the caves are found and the Dead Sea. Within a fairly short time after their discovery, historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, as well as carbon-14 dating, established that the scrolls and the Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. They were indeed ancient! Coming from the late Second Temple Period, a time when Jesus of Nazareth lived, they are older than any other surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures by almost one thousand years."
Sorry, but that does not prove anything at all. Ancient they may be, but evidence of Jesus - no, sorry.

The story of a character like Jesus dates back to Egyptian times, perhaps Sumerian - this is nothing new.
 

Nixs

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that does not prove anything at all. Ancient they may be, but evidence of Jesus - no, sorry.

The story of a character like Jesus dates back to Egyptian times, perhaps Sumerian - this is nothing new.
I don't think you will believe either if I brought Jesus in person to meet you :D
 
>
Top