Christianity and its non-historical Jesus

[ForgedinHell]

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.

Your quote from the rabbi just contains a list of five things from some messiah. If he literally believes a messiah is coming, then absolutely, the man is insane as can be. No messiah has come, nor will come. The notion is an insane delusion, nothing more.

As far as I know, every Jewish person I have ever met is not waiting for a messiah, and they think the idea is laughable. So, as an off-the-wall guess, I would estimate less than 10% of the Jews hold such a foolish belief.

My point was regarding the books from MIT, Stanford, etc., is that no legitimate university teaches the pseudoscience you believe in. The logical explanation is that it is because those beliefs you have do not belong in any science class. You believe that simply because someone with a science degree writes down something superstitious that it means science supports the superstitious claim. That's not the case at all. There are people who intentionally obtain science degrees, knowing in advance they will use that degree as support for their intelligent design nonsense. In science, there are no authorities. What matters is the evidence. Just because you have a pseudoscience book that may have been written by some people with science degrees, it does not mean that anything in that book is supported by the findings of science.

You still have not mentioned any specific scientific claim from that book that should convince me, or anyone else, that a supernatural god exists. Why is that? It's because you are afraid to. You know I will thrash any such claim.

[ForgedinHell]

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.
Actually it does. It is evidence he never existed, so there are no "Christ teachings." It's made-up nonsense. You made up a person. You put words in his mouth. You made him consistent with the other mystery-cult gods, and want the world to take your claim seriously? Hardly to be expected.

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?
No, I am illustrating the point, so perhaps, your feeble mind may grasp the concept.

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]

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?

No, I am illustrating the point ...

Yes, the point you are illustrating is the circularity in your argument, Forgy. You are supposed to be producing evidence that Jesus never existed, and you seem to think that your belief that he couldn't have existed is sufficient to persuade us that no actual evidence is needed.


... so perhaps, your feeble mind may grasp the concept.
LOL NO YOU!

[ForgedinHell]

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?

No, I am illustrating the point ...

Yes, the point you are illustrating is the circularity in your argument, Forgy. You are supposed to be producing evidence that Jesus never existed, and you seem to think that your belief that he couldn't have existed is sufficient to persuade us that no actual evidence is needed.


... so perhaps, your feeble mind may grasp the concept.
LOL NO YOU!

There is nothing circular in my argument. My position is quite clear: Jesus did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either Jesus himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Jesus. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

Your position is that Jesus existed. It's because you say so, not because you have any evidence.

Between the two positions, mine is rational and supported by the evidence, while yours is not just irrational, but so far fetched as to qualify for a delusion.

[mickthinks]

My position is quite clear: Jesus did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either Jesus himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Jesus. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

You mean you can't see the circularity in that argument?

Your position is that Jesus existed.

You keep saying that, Forgy—where is your evidence for your belief about my position?

[ForgedinHell]

Jesus did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either Jesus himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Jesus. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

You can't see the circularity in that argument?

No. The argument is perfectly rational. It makes a reasoned prediction. Then recognizes that the actual evidence fits the prediction. It is scientific in nature, not circular. You just aren't too bright.

Just reverse it: If Jesus did not exist, then we would expect to see no evidence during his alleged life to confirm his existence. So, now we have examined the evidence, and found that this is the case, that no such evidence exists, I guess we should be "non-circular" in our reasoning, like this dipstick user "mickthinks" and conclude that, therefore, Jesus must have existed. Now, that is idiocy. And that is how you are "thinking."

[mickthinks]

Jesus did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either Jesus himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Jesus. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

You can't see the circularity in that argument?

No.

LOL

Your Granddad's Granddad did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either your Granddad's Granddad himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Granddad's Granddad. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

[ForgedinHell]

Your Granddad's Granddad did not exist. Since he did not exist, one would expect that there would be nothing to confirm his existence from either your Granddad's Granddad himself or anyone around during the time he allegedly lived. There is nothing during the relevant time period that mentions an historical Granddad's Granddad. Therefore, the evidence shows he did not exist.

But there is a lot of evidence showing my grandfather existed. A birth certificate, a death certificate, property deeds; a high-school diploma; photographs; attendance records at Harvard after leaving Sweden; a criminal record; his nickname in the mob "the Deacon"; numerous records showing he managed prize fighters; pictures of him with Joe Louis; eye witnesses, who are still alive today, a cemetery plot in Illinois, etc. Unlike the case for your non-existent Jesus, the evidence for my grandfather's existence is well and good.

[reasonvemotion]

It is highly possible that the words of Jesus could have been written down during his lifetime. But, one has to consider the point of how common was full literacy at that time. When I say full, I mean the ability to be able to write and read. Would it not be fair to say that the ability to be able to have full command of both reading and writing would probably be only possible to the specifically trained or those of advanced education. What would be the likelihood of a person of that standard of education to be amongst the peasantry of Galilee, where Jesus taught. This presents the view that most or all of his teachings would most likely rely on one method. Word of mouth. The earliest Gospel, Mark, was not written until about 70 A.D.

[mickthinks]

A birth certificate, ...

You have your Granddad's Granddad's birth certificate?

Do you have your Granddad's Granddad's Granddad's birth certificate too?

[ForgedinHell]

It is highly possible that the words of Jesus could have been written down during his lifetime. But, one has to consider the point of how common was full literacy at that time. When I say full, I mean the ability to be able to write and read. Would it not be fair to say that the ability to be able to have full command of both reading and writing would probably be only possible to the specifically trained or those of advanced education. What would be the likelihood of a person of that standard of education to be amongst the peasantry of Galilee, where Jesus taught. This presents the view that most or all of his teachings would most likely rely on one method. Word of mouth. The earliest Gospel, Mark, was not written until about 70 A.D.

Sorry, but that "literacy" excuse does not get you any where. It's bad enough you would suggest that a god you worship was too stupid to know how to write, but the facts are that there were numerous writers in the area. That's why we have lots of documents from that region, during that time period. So, the literacy excuse is a non-issue.

Mark was written after the second temple was destroyed, because it mentions it. However, christian leaders did not even reference Mark's gospel until muh later, so the earliest the gospel was written was more than 40 years after this alleged Jesus died, with absolutely nothing written about his historical life in the interim. The reality is the gospel was probably written in the second century.

[ForgedinHell]

A birth certificate, ...

You have your Granddad's Granddad's birth certificate?

Do you have your Granddad's Granddad's Granddad's birth certificate too?

You seriously think that you are making an intelligent argument for anyone to believe in an historical Jesus? You aren't. The facts are that Jesus was claimed to have been a rock-star of the ages, in an area that was quite active in the Roman Empire, with numerous literate writers present to record events.

There is not a shred of credible evidence for an historical Jesus, and I mean not a single shred without exaggeration.

You Christians will have to convert, become atheists, or go back to the mystery-cult roots of Christianity. But, in the not-too-distant future, any claim for an historical Jesus will be laughed at.

[Bernard]

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

I'm fine about being a rube. I'm fine about being an idiot, and stupid, and a nut job; but I'm also sophisticated, intelligent and sane.

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.

Much to your great displeasure, a rational explanation is not obligatory on a philosophy forum. As I've said , Jesus wasn't excessively popular at all during his life, and the popularity his death engendered had a slow incubation. It reached the scribbling class in good time though. This one scrap of evidence concerning the Nag Hammadi texts should be enough to make anyone suspend judgement at least as regards to whether or not Jesus existed: The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek.[4] The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery it was recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts themselves date from the third and fourth centuries.

All you are doing here is projecting out onto others what you are: laughing stock.

[Bernard]

The earliest Gospel, Mark, was not written until about 70 A.D.

Mark's gospel isa non-gospel, probably an early concoction only.

[reasonvemotion]

There is nothing that could be presented to you as proof that you would accept. Whether it be scientific or theology.

Your mind is closed.

You are the expert on all topics on this Forum a man of vast knowledge, who am I to argue with you.