Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 6341

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Okay enough of this blather about if Jesus or by any other name existed. Was he married ? Did he have a good sex life if he was. Lets really get into it. I want to hear some good stuff. Did the apostles stay celibate ? You will have to crawl under a rock to get the evidence. I will give you all the time you need starting now.
Hehe, that's indeed an interesting question.
When you read the Gospels you certainly see that Jesus was influenced quite heavily be the Essenes, who were very strict in how they adhered to the law: Jesus' ridiculously strict definition of adultery and "murder in your heart" are in a way testimony to this.
Essenes were also celibates, however, so if Jesus really was influenced by them it's likely that he indeed wasn't married. Plenty of Jewish men who considered themselves "holy" did not marry.
Besides: Jewish males around the time usually did not marry until their 40's because they had to acquire a large amount of wealth to even be considered for a marriage. So even if he did wanted to get married it's likely that he wouldn't have gotten around to it with all the preaching and stuff.

Not very good Cosmo material, in other words ;)
Of course, every human is going to want to have sex. It's natural - and yes, you are correct that you would have to dig into some very dark places to get that evidence.
Not all humans want to have sex. The catholic priest are celibate. are they not. Side note. Do not take this comment seriously.


This is Jesus.

He's not a carpenter, he's a cyclist.

And yeah, he exists.
My Jesus specializes in putting linoleum in homes. :3 He even did so for one of the three stooges back in the day. I can't remember which one now. He actually had a hernia operation yesterday. I need to call him to see how he's doing. My Jesus is my maternal grandfather. >./body>
The cars are the least of it. The mansions they live in tell a story. What ever happened to give all you own to the poor.
Two references in Josephus and one reference in Tacitus.
Two references in Josephus and one reference in Tacitus.

1 - Highly suspected forgery

2 - Highly suspected forgery

3 - References Christian belief in Christ without specifying one way or another if Tacitus himself believed (or had any secular reason to believe) that their messiah was a real person.

Both of these references were written generations after Jesus supposedly lived and well after the first writings of Paul began to circulate.
Er, yup. Name me a single, a single reputable historian who agrees with what you're saying.

At this moment, you're acting like you a creationist: desperately clutching at every straw, every indication, every shred of evidence that just might make the case for a historical Jesus less strong. And you're doing so in the face of a consensus of professionals and scholars, while you are getting your information from Wikipedia articles.

Never mind professional historians disagree with you, never mind this kooky conspiracy theory has disappeared (for good reason) in the 19th century and hasn't been taken seriously by any reputable scholar every since.

Please, come up with an alternative theory: who invented Jesus? When? Why? Why does he fail so many Messianic prophecies? Why did nobody (even early Christianity's many enemies) fail to notice Jesus' nonexistence?
Er, yup. Name me a single, a single reputable historian who agrees with what you're saying.

I already did, when I referenced them in my reply that you are attacking.

When text is in blue and underlined, that usually means it is a link to another page. In this case, a Wikipedia page on the historicity of Jesus. (In a past reply you noted that Wikipedia is a reliable source). The page in turn is sourced. References 44-59 all relate to the passage on Josephus.
It's good to actually read wikipedia articles before you claim them to support your conclusion, and claim that they must include "a single reputable historian" who agrees with your claims. Otherwise it comes across as pretty dumb...

Your claim (three posts ago) is that both passages in Josephus are "highly suspected forgeries" and that Tacitus based himself on Christian hear-say for the Annales. I asked you what scholar agreed with those assessments. You then linked to a wikipedia article, praying (probably) that at least one of them would agree with those three claims. Well, tough luck for you, here's what it says in the article:

Concerning the first passage in Josephus:
While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[54] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[55] since some portions are written in his style.
"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt."
"Dr. Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine[47]"

This is what I have been saying the whole time: the passage was altered, it was added unto, but there was an original passage there concerning Jesus.

Concerning the second passage in Josephus:
"The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James."

Concerning Tacitus:
"While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some dispute it"

So we have a majority arguing that the first passage is genuine, a vast majority arguing that the second is genuine, and a majority arguing that Tacitus is good evidence. You've yet to show a single scholar who holds the three claims you made.

You lose. Again.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service