Christianity and its non-historical Jesus

[Bernard]

You've never rebutted anything I have stated on the topic. But, here is another fact for you to consider. We know that when celebrities exist, people love to visit the places they lived, worked at, and died at, etc. Now, we are to believe, according to the Bible, that Jesus was insanely popular, and then, he gets crucified to save us. Okay, then if that were true, what would we expect to see in the historical record? Why, we would expect to see a lot of people who immediately started vsiting the places where Jesus lived, and died. You would not be able to keep the gawkers away. Yet, pilgrimages to the alleged death scene did not take place until more than 100 years later. That's exactly what we would expect if Jesus was an ahistorical person.

This is nonsensical. If Jesus was 'insanely popular'. Why would the crowd yell to pilate to crucify him? The Sermon on the mount isn't what your Charlton Heston or Monty Python movies tell us it was. There may have been dozens there, perhaps in the low hundreds; hardly a celeb event. His manner of death was what propelled the bulk of his fame and popularity, and even if twitter existed back then it still would have taken time for what happened to be understood to some extent, and the stories of his life to be passed around and absorbed. You don't know how long it took for visits to the site of his execution to take place, except in historical records, which aren't comprehensive of anything 2000 years old.

You can do better than that, surely, FIH?

[reasonvemotion]

Of course we know that the Jews are "still waiting" for the real Messiah to come.


Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book on Jewish Literacy, writes:



"Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will:

be a descendant of King David,
gain sovereignty over the land of Israel,
gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth,
restore them to full observance of Torah law, and,
as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world"
Jews for the most part do not believe all 5 of these conditions have been met yet.


There have been at least 2 notable cases of false messiahs in Jewish history: Simon Bar Kokhba and Shabbetai Zvi.




Is that not your real reason for your rejection of the Christian's belief on this.

[ForgedinHell]

You've never rebutted anything I have stated on the topic. But, here is another fact for you to consider. We know that when celebrities exist, people love to visit the places they lived, worked at, and died at, etc. Now, we are to believe, according to the Bible, that Jesus was insanely popular, and then, he gets crucified to save us. Okay, then if that were true, what would we expect to see in the historical record? Why, we would expect to see a lot of people who immediately started vsiting the places where Jesus lived, and died. You would not be able to keep the gawkers away. Yet, pilgrimages to the alleged death scene did not take place until more than 100 years later. That's exactly what we would expect if Jesus was an ahistorical person.

This is nonsensical. If Jesus was 'insanely popular'. Why would the crowd yell to pilate to crucify him? The Sermon on the mount isn't what your Charlton Heston or Monty Python movies tell us it was. There may have been dozens there, perhaps in the low hundreds; hardly a celeb event. His manner of death was what propelled the bulk of his fame and popularity, and even if twitter existed back then it still would have taken time for what happened to be understood to some extent, and the stories of his life to be passed around and absorbed. You don't know how long it took for visits to the site of his execution to take place, except in historical records, which aren't comprehensive of anything 2000 years old.

You can do better than that, surely, FIH?

You are a rube. An epic rube at that. The gospels state that Jesus rode into town a hero, and then the next day he was arrested and killed shortly after that. That would have been an interesting state of affairs to say the least, yet, there is not a single scrap of paper that records the event. No record from the alleged trial, no records by any contemporaneous historian, Roman, Jew, Greek, no one. That's because it did not happen.

The trial itself is purely a fictional account and could not have happened. There are numerous legal violations that occurred, any one of which never would have happened, and all of them happening is just too implausible. These include the meeting during passover, a secret trial, Pilate consulting with a crowd, beating a prisoner, the High Priest acting as interrogator and striking the prisoner, etc.

Now, Pilate was quite ruthless and recalled to Rome for being too brutal, yet, we are to believe that the Jewish slaves would have bossed him around? Not to mention the day before the crowd loved Jesus, now for some unexplained reason they are calling for his death? The fact is Pilate would not have hesitated to kill any Jew, no matter innocent or not.

There was no violation of any Jewish law committed by Jesus that would have warranted death.

There is no record of the trial, yet, we have documents from more than 100 trials during Rome's existence.

And here is something incredibly strange: The gospels allege that there was this custom where the Jews could call for the release of a prisoner, and the Jews call for the release of a guy who murdered Romans, and Pilate released him? No one has ever been able to find a single hint of this custom. It was referred to as the Privilegium Paschale, and it did not exist. Who was released the year before? The year after? It just didn't happen.

[ForgedinHell]

Of course we know that the Jews are "still waiting" for the real Messiah to come.


Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book on Jewish Literacy, writes:



"Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will:

be a descendant of King David,
gain sovereignty over the land of Israel,
gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth,
restore them to full observance of Torah law, and,
as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world"
Jews for the most part do not believe all 5 of these conditions have been met yet.


There have been at least 2 notable cases of false messiahs in Jewish history: Simon Bar Kokhba and Shabbetai Zvi.




Is that not your real reason for your rejection of the Christian's belief on this.

Actually, the Jews never waited for a god to come, that idea is foreign to Jews. The vast majority of Jews are not waiting for anyone. And, even among Jews who are still waiting, that is a more rational view than the Christian one that claims some messiah god has come and gone. I mean, look at this place? Only a moron would think we are living in a post-messianic world.

There was no historical Jesus. The entire claim is made-up, like I pointed out regarding the fake trial. Jesus's trial could not have happened that way, any more back then than a trial like it would take place today.

[ForgedinHell]

So you have read it? No.

So you cannot comment.


Is this another case of "Kant".

I study real science. Here, I tell you what you can do: Go to the book store at MIT, and pick up any science textbook used in any science class taught at MIT. Or, go to Stanford, Cal Tech, etc., and do the same thing. Not one of the science books will claim a god exists, that a god did anything, that there is anything supernatural going on. Not one. Now, don't you think it odd that every major university uses science books to train even doctoral students in science that there is nothing supernatural, while you claim that science has uncovered proof of the supernatural and god?

Go ahead and provide us with an y such so-called science? You won't do it, because you know I'll tear it to shreds, and you'll be looking even dumber on here than you already do look.

[mickthinks]

1. There are as many reasons to believe something without evidence as there are people who are happy to believe it.
2. There is evidence that Jesus existed.

My beliefs are so off-topic that [vegetariantaxidermy doesn't] even know what they are.

Actually that is not true.

Actually, Forgy, that is all true. And you have no evidence for believing otherwise, which by your own account makes you 'bat crap crazy'.

Had Jesus come to deliver a message, then he would have written something down. He didn't.
You believe he didn't write anything down, so I guess you have evidence that he didn"t. Please provide it.
You believe that if he lived it was in order to deliver a message, so I guess you have evidence of that too. Please provide it.
You believe that everyone who comes to deliver a message will always write it down. What kind of evidence do you think you have for this belief?

[ForgedinHell]

1. There are as many reasons to believe something without evidence as there are people who are happy to believe it.
2. There is evidence that Jesus existed.

My beliefs are so off-topic that [vegetariantaxidermy doesn't] even know what they are.

Actually that is not true.

Actually, Forgy, that is all true. And you have no evidence for believing otherwise, which by your own account makes you 'bat crap crazy'.

Had Jesus come to deliver a message, then he would have written something down. He didn't.
You believe he didn't write anything down, so I guess you have evidence that he didn"t. Please provide it.
You believe that if he lived it was in order to deliver a message, so I guess you have evidence of that too. Please provide it.
You believe that everyone who comes to deliver a message will always write it down. What kind of evidence do you think you have for this belief?

There is zero evidence that Jesus existed. That is why the Christians actually forged documents, like adding an infamous paragraph to the writings of Josephus. My evidence that he didn't write anything down is the fact we have no such writings, and we have no writings claiming he ever wrote anything down, while we do have writings from other people. like Cicero, who lived before this alleged Jesus was born. The evidence that he was here to deliver a message comes from the stories in the Gospels. No, there may be those who come to deliver a message and who fail to write anything down. They would, however, be stupid people.

Anything else?

[mickthinks]

My evidence that he didn't write anything down is the fact we have no such writings, ...
You believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Really? You can end up believing all kinds of nonsense that way, Forgy!

The evidence that he was here to deliver a message comes from the stories in the Gospels.
You may believe that but where's your evidence? Can you cite chapter and verse, or are we just to take your word as, er, ... gospel?

No, there may be those who come to deliver a message and who fail to write anything down. They would, however, be stupid people.
Hmmm ... That's an interesting theory about messengers. Can you prove it?

[ForgedinHell]

My evidence that he didn't write anything down is the fact we have no such writings, ...
You believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Really? You can end up believing all kinds of nonsense that way, Forgy!

Nope, you are once again illustrating your utter lack of intelligence. It is not just the absence of evidence. It is the absence of evidence that we would expect to have if Jesus actually existed. Imagine a man riding into town, a popular hero, only to be arrested shortly there after and executed in a public show trial that would have violated every principle of law? Surely, someone would have written something down about an event so dramatic? There are writers in the area who were interested in events, and they never mention anything about it. If he had not existed, then we would have expected no such writings. If he had existed, then we would expect writings. Therefore, the absence of evidence points in the direction of him not having existed. It's like the claim that a person was stabbed twenty times in a bedroom. If there is no bedroom, then it did not happen. If the person did not exist, then it did not happen. Absence of evidence can be quite useful.

The evidence that he was here to deliver a message comes from the stories in the Gospels.
You may believe that but where's your evidence? Can you cite chapter and verse, or are we just to take your word as, er, ... gospel?

If you really want to take the position that the Gospels don't portray a Jesus coming to deliver a new message, then feel free to take said position. Not only will you have won today's "Idiot of the Day Award" from the atheist community, but from the Christian community as well.

No, there may be those who come to deliver a message and who fail to write anything down. They would, however, be stupid people.
Hmmm ... That's an interesting theory about messengers. Can you prove it?

Sure I can prove it. Oral communication is notoriously unreliable. Anyone who would want to deliver an important message, especially one to save all humanity, to spread throughout the globe, and through the ages, who did not write the message down, would qualify as a complete moron. There are experiments where a simple sentence is whispered in a student's ear, and the student is told to whisper in the ear of the person next toi him, and after going through 20 people, the message is hilariously altered. Surely, then, if Jesus were an actual God, he would have known how idiotic it was to not write anything down? Apparently, he couldn't think of everything.

[ForgedinHell]

My evidence that he didn't write anything down is the fact we have no such writings, ...
You believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Really? You can end up believing all kinds of nonsense that way, Forgy!

The evidence that he was here to deliver a message comes from the stories in the Gospels.
You may believe that but where's your evidence? Can you cite chapter and verse, or are we just to take your word as, er, ... gospel?

No, there may be those who come to deliver a message and who fail to write anything down. They would, however, be stupid people.
Hmmm ... That's an interesting theory about messengers. Can you prove it?

The facts are in: You believe in a Jesus despite having no evidence for his existence. None. Some person or persons named Mark write down a fictional story, a story that could not have happened, and you believe that it must be true. The same source that speaks of pregnant virgins, people walking on water, zombies walking the earth, etc., is one you find reliable? You have walked away from any sense of reason you may have had. Congradulations on joining the tribe of dolts who promote idiocy as a way of life. I'm sticking with reason.

[Bernard]

You are a rube. An epic rube at that.

Let me guess - that means I don't have the privilege to exist in your academic mind.

We went over the why Jesus didn't write anything months ago in another thread. There is no need to recapitulate any ofit. You seem to think journalists existed two thousand years ago. The book by Gibran by itself is enough for anyone to see he existed who knows that faith is never blind . That picture of him is him. Those talking of him are those people.


The people who welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem were the contingent of those who loved him, and were not many, and probably not from Jerusalem on the whole anyway. Compared to the usual crucifixion crowd they were small in size and very unlikely to visit crucifixion events.

[mickthinks]

It is the absence of evidence that we would expect to have if Jesus actually existed.

You believe that we would expect to have it, so I guess you have evidence to prove that. Please provide some.

Surely, someone would have written something down about an event so dramatic?
Er .. this has nothing to do with Christ's own writings.

If the person did not exist, then it did not happen.
You do realise you are assuming here what you are supposed to be proving?

If you really want to take the position that the Gospels don't portray a Jesus coming to deliver a new message, then feel free to take said position.
That isn't evidence for your belief, Forgy. You do have some evidence from the Gospels for what you claim to believe, don't you?

Mick: Can you prove [those who come to deliver a message and who fail to write anything down [would] be stupid people.?
Forgy: Oral communication is notoriously unreliable.

So is written communication, so either you have just proved the stupidity of every messenger ever , or you've made a mistake, Forgy.

[mickthinks]

The facts are in: You believe in a Jesus despite having no evidence for his existence.
lol The trouble with you, Forgy, is that you just can't tell the difference between facts and (your own) beliefs.

Where is your evidence for what I believe?

[reasonvemotion]

And, even among Jews who are still waiting, that is a more rational view than the Christian one that claims some messiah god has come and gone.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book on Jewish Literacy, writes:



"Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will:

be a descendant of King David,
gain sovereignty over the land of Israel,
gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth,
restore them to full observance of Torah law, and,
as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world"

The Rabbi is a fool too, as he would be, according to you, because he is promoting the foolish idea that there is a "Messiah" who will come into existence and be able to perform all five tasks above. This Messiah (man) as it is written in the Torah, is also viewed by you to be illegitimately claiming charismatic authority. I note you do acknowledge there are some jews who are still waiting. Some? what percentage would that be? Which bookshop did you buy the literature and by whom was it written to prove that there are "some jews still waiting".

Was it the book store at MIT or perhaps Stanford, Cal Tech, etc. two of your most trusted sources.

[ForgedinHell]

You are a rube. An epic rube at that.

Let me guess - that means I don't have the privilege to exist in your academic mind.

We went over the why Jesus didn't write anything months ago in another thread. There is no need to recapitulate any ofit. You seem to think journalists existed two thousand years ago. The book by Gibran by itself is enough for anyone to see he existed who knows that faith is never blind . That picture of him is him. Those talking of him are those people.


The people who welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem were the contingent of those who loved him, and were not many, and probably not from Jerusalem on the whole anyway. Compared to the usual crucifixion crowd they were small in size and very unlikely to visit crucifixion events.

No, you have the right to exist, but I have the right to call you a rube, because you are one.

There were numerous writers in the area, it was a hot-bed of activity for the Roman Empire. There were Roman writers, Greek writers, Jewish writers all over the place. So, no, you did not explain why there were no writings. You may have offered a poor excuse that would satisfy the feeble-minded among us, but you did not provide a rational explanation.