Jesus never existed

[Lithium]

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

I agree, and I'm very glad that the curriculum in Religion here is angled more towards the cultural aspect of religion.

[dalsh327]

It seemed like everything in the Roman Empire was documented, so Pilate's trial of Jesus and Barrabas should have been documented. I don't know if this part of the story falls into the Horus mythology.

It also gets into the dynamic between the Romans and Rabbi elders at the time, because the Rabbis seemed to be really upset that Christ was messing with their system. He was put to death not because he was absolving mankind of their evils. There's also a mention of being hated in his home city, so he might have been "erased".

And what about those "missing years"...either he was a carpenter or he was a rebel rabbi with a wife and kids.

[DieselDaisy]

It is not so much, everything being documented (the Romans were quite, bureaucratic, as it happens) but, how much of it survives for us today. Papyri deteriorates very easily, and can only really survive in sand. Most of what we know was transcribed by Christian and Islamic scribes through the ages. Much of it awaited re-discovery by the humanists of the 16th century. What does survive tends to have gaps and bits and pieces missing, lacunae. Sometimes later writers used historical sources which are now lost to us. And regarding Roman magisterial decrees, those that survive tend to be the ones that were preserved in stone, for public consumption.

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

This is complete twaddle. I expected better of you, I really did.

[Dazey]

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

But we are not talking about 'Christians'. We are talking about pagan - anti-Christian even - Roman historians! We have also mentioned real, solid, substantive, archaeology evidence (which you can go and see with your own eyes). You clearly have not been following this debate very well.

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

But it is the historical debate that concerns us. The argument on, whether Jesus was the Son of God is a completely separate issue.

Isn't that what I said?

[DieselDaisy]

Well yes, although whether or not it is considered 'horseshit' or not presumably resides in, whether or not you are a Christian.

[Dazey]

Well yes, although whether or not it is considered 'horseshit' or not presumably resides in, whether or not you are a Christian.

Well that and the fact that it's horseshit.

[wasted]

Christians were getting nailed up on crosses. Then they write a book about a guy who gets nailed up on cross who's special and dies for our sins. Seems conveienent to me.

[DieselDaisy]

A Christian would obviously think differently.

[DieselDaisy]

Christians were getting nailed up on crosses. Then they write a book about a guy who gets nailed up on cross who's special and dies for our sins. Seems conveienent to me.

Not really. Crucifixion was a standard Roman punishment for enemies of the state - particularly, those without full Roman Citizenship and/or those with a lowly social status. Rome was using crucifixion as early as the Punic Wars. If Jesus was going to be executed by Pilate, crucifixion would be the presumed method of execution.

[Ace Nova]

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

I respectfully disagree. On all points.

[wasted]

A lot of Christians were getting crucified or a lot of potential Christians. I think it's a common story that people related to. So there were a lot of Jesus type characters and they simplified it into stories for the book/bible. Or not, there's not enough evidence to prove either way. They kind of have him superpowers too. But I don't think what was written was bad. People couldn't read or write anyway. So it's like their culture or rules to live by in a brutal situation.

[SoulMonster]

All of our knowledge of the Principate of Augustus for instance basically comes from Suetonius and Tacitus, both written about one-hundred years, and Cassius Dio, about two hundred years, after the Principate of Augustus. There is also Augustus's own epitaph, Res Gestae, and the coinage and architectural ruins which tell us a bit about how Augustus wished to be perceived, his propaganda. And that is it! This is the most important man in the universe and we are basically relying on three accounts written years after the events, one of which (Suetonius) is, not so much 'history', more, racy titillating gossip. We could do better? We could, for instance, have Augustus's Memoirs, all lost.

Now, compare this to Jesus, where we have the Pauline letters and the Gospels - which are four biographical variations.

You have left out Nicolaus of Damascus who was a contemporary historian of Augustus and one of the primary sources to his life, as well as Augustus' letter to his son.

As for Jesus, like most historians I don't consider the gospels to be trustworthy, at least not in their entireties, which leaves us with very little information on the historical Jesus, much less than than those persons I have written whose lifes are described by contemporary historians which historians agree are excellent sources. But again, we are not talking about the amount of information we have on these people, but the evidence for their historical existence.

It is not so much, everything being documented (the Romans were quite, bureaucratic, as it happens) but, how much of it survives for us today. Papyri deteriorates very easily, and can only really survive in sand. Most of what we know was transcribed by Christian and Islamic scribes through the ages. Much of it awaited re-discovery by the humanists of the 16th century. What does survive tends to have gaps and bits and pieces missing, lacunae. Sometimes later writers used historical sources which are now lost to us. And regarding Roman magisterial decrees, those that survive tend to be the ones that were preserved in stone, for public consumption.

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

This is complete twaddle. I expected better of you, I really did.

You don't agree that schools shouldn't teach religious nonsense except when it actually directly influences society and humanity?

[wasted]

I'd leave it at the Children's bible and hit the bar.

[luciusfunk]

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

I agree. He MIGHT have existed. He probably didn't though. We'll never know though, cause there's no way to prove it. Mankind has wasted enough time and resources on pondering it. We really should just ignore it and move on.

Trying to argue about evidence, logic, and reason with these imbeciles is a complete waste of time and will only leave you shaking your head at their blind willful ignorance.

Kasanova King....your staggering idiocy is just embarrassing. It's just shameful that an ADULT, a grown ass human being, can choose to be so fucking blitheringly stupid. Whatever. It's your life. If you want to believe in Jesus and Santa Claus and Spider-Man and Spongebob and other made up children's stories, there's nothing we can do about it.

I've said all I feel like saying on the topic, in this thread and others. Not gonna bother anymore. I'd get a more rational thought-out response from the annoying fucking yippy dog that barks all afternoon down the street.

[DieselDaisy]

You have left out Nicolaus of Damascus who was a contemporary historian of Augustus and one of the primary sources to his life, as well as Augustus' letter to his son.

So little of his Life of Augustus remains though. In fact this just proves my point: If the manuscripts we know to have existed, still exist, how much more knowledge would be passed down to us? Whole wars probably happened which we do not know of. After all, we only know of the Boudicea revolt because of Tacitus and Cassius Dio.

As for Jesus, like most historians I don't consider the gospels to be trustworthy, at least not in their entireties, which leaves us with very little information on the historical Jesus, much less than than those persons I have written whose lifes are described by contemporary historians which historians agree are excellent sources. But again, we are not talking about the amount of information we have on these people, but the evidence for their historical existence.

Most historians do not discount the gospels either!! If you look at the non-Christian aspects of the gospels, they are broadly historical. We have,

- the reign of Herod the Great and Herod Antipas, both of whom are mentioned in Josephus and attested by coinage.

- crucifixion as the Roman method of capital punishment

- the prefecture of Pontius Pilate - attested by the Pilate stone

- Rome's relationship with the Sanhedrin and Judaism in general

- the state of Judaism itself, producing messiah like figures and sectarianism (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Also, by the same token, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius all had their agendas. They all lived under the tyranny of Domitian and wished to show a bad ruler-good ruler dichotomy (as a lesson for future emperors). They, as senatorial-equestrian Romans, were all somewhat ashamed of themselves as a class, that the Senate had surrendered its power to the emperor. Should then, we discount everything they say when discussing 'bad emperors'? Further, the plebeien class is virtually absent from their works, and, as civilised Romans, they are broadly xenophobic and condescending, while discussing 'barbarians'.

You don't agree that schools shouldn't teach religious nonsense except when it actually directly influences society and humanity?

'Nonsense' is relative. Atheism is 'nonsense' to a, fairly orthodox and vocal, Christian. But to answer your point I would not specially teach religion in state schools at all. I cannot remember the 'RE' I attended, as I recall it, being taken terribly seriously by either the teacher or the class (I remember the Jehovah's Witnesses all being excluded haha). Faith schools however obviously have a right to teach their faith.

Edited October 6, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

PS

Do not forget the lesson of Richard the III. According to the Richard the III Society which had its minions worldwide, Richard was a mild mannered saint who could not have murdered the princes. We know this because Shakespeare and Henry VII had a vested interest in demonising RIII - Henry probably murdered the princes - so we are told. And we know the Tudors did so because they added a hunchback. In the middle ages, hunch backs and other deformities were, you see, said to signify, evil and deceit.

The above was reiterated by Richard's followers for years.

Last year we find Richard's skeleton. Guess what? It is a hunchback!!

A lot of sheepish looking historians these days.

Edited October 6, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

In fact this just proves my point: If the manuscripts we know to have existed, still exist, how much more knowledge would be passed down to us? Whole wars probably happened which we do not know of. After all, we only know of the Boudicea revolt because of Tacitus and Cassius Dio.

So that is your point now? Well, I can't disagree with the statement that we would know more about the past if so much books hadn't got lost

As for Jesus, like most historians I don't consider the gospels to be trustworthy, at least not in their entireties

Most historians do not discount the gospels either!!

You didn't see I made a point of "in their entireties"? As I said earlier, most historians don't accept the gospels as gospel. It is very difficult to extract parts of the gospels that are historically credible and which aren't, since they are so obviously made with a clear agenda and so suffused with obvious errors, inaccurancies and blatant fiction. This doesn't mean that historians don't agree on parts that are thought to be factual, just that these parts are quite few:

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15] Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

So this only gives us a handful of facts about Jesus' life that we can be confident are factual, which is much less than for all the people I mentioned earlier as well as hundreds of additional people, especially from Roman and Chinese 1st century history. As an example I randomly decided to provide some information that we are confident are correct about Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (which I listed from my brainstorming earlier):

- We know when he was born (+/- 1 year)

- We know when he died (+/- 1 year)

- We knew about his family (names of relatives including father and siblings and information on their lives)

- We know details about his career (including when he entered the various positions in the cursus honorum)

- We know about his political and military alliances and conflicts

The primary sources for all the wealth of information, which would comprise many, many pages of text, about Lepidus include Cicero, Decimus Brutus and Valeius Paterculus, and although all of these had agendas for what they wrote, there is no reason to not trust the basic facts I have presented above, and these facts vastly surpass what little we know for certain about Jesus' life.

So again, it is remarkable that we have information on the life of Jesus of Nazareth, but we do and we can be relatively certain he is a real historical person, but many other people's lives from that period is much more well-documented. The quote from Ehrman is just embarassing.

'Nonsense' is relative.

When I use the term "nonsense" it must surely be understood in the contemporary, elighetened, modern context we live in, i.e. as a description of something that clearly doesn't make sense when logically investigated.

[TeeJay410]

There is a fair bit of certainty a historical Jesus existed, so far as there was a Jewish political dissident who rabble roused, and was executed in a rather banal and ordinary way, as crucifixions were typical punishments for rabble rousing political dissidents. That is all that can be said of a historical Jesus.

Now the Jesus of the Bible? To put it lightly, unlikely. To put it honestly, impossible.

[Apollo]

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

I respectfully disagree. On all points.

Dude, don't you know that you are supposed to insult those you disagree with and then say that their opinions are bullsh*t and ridiculous? Doing that makes your opinion stronger.

[SoulMonster]

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.

I respectfully disagree. On all points.

Dude, don't you know that you are supposed to insult those you disagree with and then say that their opinions are bullsh*t and ridiculous? Doing that makes your opinion stronger.

Actually including arguments supporting your view makes your opinion stronger. Whether you dress these arguments in inflammatory rhetorics or diplomatic phrasings really is irrelevant to the strength of them. Being confrontary and polemic may distract from the argument you are making in the sense that they go unnoticed but may not actually devalue them. Only newbies and those that are easily confused and distracted fail to see the underlying arguments when they are insulted by the form they come in.

[Apollo]

Soul,

Nope, not at all. When people realize that their opinions might actually be wrong, they slip into the insult mode.

I realize that you come here to "ridicule, educate and "win".........but it really is OK to just have a normal discussion with somebody without resorting to immature name calling. Insulting a point or somebody you disagree doesn't validate or make your own views stronger. It just makes you seem immature. You fancy yourself as being smarter than everybody else, going into insult mode should be below you.

[Lithium]

Groghan, you've been complaining about people insulting each other on the internet for the better part of a decade now. Isn't it about time you realize that insults are a vital and highly entertaining part of internet discussions?

[AxlisOld]

Groghan, you've been complaining about people insulting each other on the internet for the better part of a decade now. Isn't it about time you realize that insults are a vital and highly entertaining part of internet discussions?

Poop face.

[Ace Nova]

Kasanova King....your staggering idiocy is just embarrassing. It's just shameful that an ADULT, a grown ass human being, can choose to be so fucking blitheringly stupid. Whatever. It's your life. If you want to believe in Jesus and Santa Claus and Spider-Man and Spongebob and other made up children's stories, there's nothing we can do about it.

This coming from someone who thinks dinosaurs and cave men lived 2000 years ago. That's rich.

[AxlisOld]

Kasanova King....your staggering idiocy is just embarrassing. It's just shameful that an ADULT, a grown ass human being, can choose to be so fucking blitheringly stupid. Whatever. It's your life. If you want to believe in Jesus and Santa Claus and Spider-Man and Spongebob and other made up children's stories, there's nothing we can do about it.

This coming from someone who thinks dinosaurs and cave men lived 2000 years ago. That's rich.

I don't think estrangedtwat believes that they lived 2,000 ago. I think he probably believes...you know...science.