A question about the bible.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

And yet, he goes on to challenge the existence of the Biblical Jesus throughout his talk!
e
Edit: The video was posted as a rebuttal to Bart Ehrman's interview with "the atheist."

edit on 19-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

I agree with you it is a challenge but the funnier thing is it could be done with several of Jesus contemporaries.If a person was not a Political Leader or killed one History did not record them.

He creates derision with humor and absurdities with pop culture. But in the end his evidence is inconclusive.

I will give him this about his books I hope it makes scholars rethink how to determine and define history! It did little to make me believe the mythicists arguments and it did little in the shape of actually proving that Jesus did not exist.

Atheists are fond of saying it is not possible to prove a negative but then Carrier has rebuttal for that as well...

Thank you for the debate

It does seem problematic (IMO) that the "scholars" usually associated with biblical historicity (and even archaeology) have historically amounted to another arm of the clergy/church ..... impartiality is doubtful (anyone who believes the supernatural version is already delusional IMO).

That secular historians cede the probability of an otherwise unremarkable 1st century figure/messianic nutter (1st century version of Marshall Applewhite?) who later became remarkably mythicised seems based more appeasement to avoid controversy and the wrath of religious zealots/scholars... and the fact that claiming to be a messiah wasn't an unpopular pastime amongst the ignorant peasants of the day. It certainly isn't based on anything genuinely indicative of a historical jesus, because there is nothing.

We know the claims about jesus are bogus (at least, those who are not suffering religious delusions do).

There are no genuine historical sources to suggest such a person existed in the first place.

The earliest mentions of him are obviously as a supernatural being/hallucination.

The amazing propensity for christian forgery in an effort to make such a figure appear historical speaks volumes alone. As well as the destruction of anything which might have conflicted.

When the parallels with other hero myths are considered, the claim that among all of them, jesus alone was the only one that was real, becomes a fantastic one. Though when looking for something to support it, we find nothing.

The claims that there is any similarity with known historical figures like Caesar is surely among the most ignorant grasping of straws ever grace the pages of ats.

The "Nazareth" claim is disputed.

not a single artefact, tomb or structure at Nazareth can be dated with certainty before 100 CE—that is, unless we go back to the Iron Age (MoN:205). 4 The Archaeology of Nazareth: A History of Pious Fraud? René Salm / SBL: November 17, 2012 3

Looseness in archaeological training In biblical archaeology, there is a considerable looseness of terminology regarding what constitutes an “archaeologist.” Regarding those who have actually dug at Nazareth we may ask: How extensive was their scientific training? How rigorous was that training? These are not idle questions for, over and over, we find that the excavators on Catholic Church property have failed to observe standard guidelines of stratigraphy, documentation, publication, and preservation.4 Amnon ben Tor, a respected Israeli archaeologist and the author of the well-known reference work, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, notes the pervasive need in some circles to validate scripture, a desire which he finds corrosive of archaeological integrity. He observes that many archaeologists active in the Land of Israel “received a large part of their education at various theological seminaries, while their archaeological training was often deficient.”

the pdf can be found here.....

www.nazarethmyth.info...

reply to post by jjsr420


From one spiritual person to another one. I've found in life when the student is ready the teacher comes. It might not come as a person it could come as a book. It could even come in what some would say is a dream. What we really want to know comes to us in some way.

If you depend on Books or others opinions are you making your own choices on if someone was real or not? Take your time think about what you want to know. When the time is right you'll know one way or another. It could be a stranger that says something to you that when you hear there words you say...oh my gosh I should of seen that for myself. It could be events that bring you to your answer.

Don't take no ones words go with when your gut tells you what is and what isn't.

he was the last pharaoh of egypt and son of cleopatra.
the pharaohs were god men. jesus was a god man.
he was from the root of david via his ptolemy ancestory.
he would've been the heir of the holy roman empire, the egyptian empire and the throne of israel, all at the same time. he had the biggest target in history painted on him.
it's a big secret, apparently.

he called himself, THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, which means the first and the last. if he was a pharaoh, and i believe he was, that means he's saying he was the very first pharaoh also, not just the last pharaoh. but who was the very first pharaoh? the answers vary, depending on who ya talk to. some say it's narmer, some say pharaonic egypt predated the time of narmer and the records have either been destroyed by man or by flood or similar disaster. i have a few theories on the subject, but they are lengthy and incorporate thousands of years so not going to attempt to share it here.

reply to post by jjsr420


No there is no proof at all the bible is true because there would not be atheists if it was proven to be true. When the bible was created a bunch of people in power got together and decided what would go in the bible and what wouldn't. Makes you wonder if there was an actual book that did provide some kind of proof of a God but was decided that the common folk should be kept in the dark and only the powerful people will know the truth of life and the unknown.

reply to post by undo


Maybe some new evidence being discovered, can back up your theories ?
I believe it can.

www.darrencurnoe.net...

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

Because the span of the Bible, and the many books, and how they all lead to the same thing, and the prophecies and etc shows alot of proof. Then reiterating it to the Dead Sea scrolls also shows further proof that whatever was written there, hasn't changed. So I mean you could say its all coincidence, but what else has fallen into such scrutiny and maintained itself?

A better question to ask is "how do you prove He did not exist?"

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by tdk84

 

No he doesn't, not in my opinion. First of all, Jesus' name wasn't Christ. "Christ" is a Greek word/concept of god's representative on earth, a title given to Royalty. During biblical times, Caesar was the "Christ."

Secondly, there were many sects of early Christians many of whom didn't recognize the figure Jesus as divine. Many of these early Christian sects worshiped a Christ that was spiritual and never physical. (Gnostics)

Even Paul never recognizes that actual life and deeds of this person, "Jesus."

I'm not sure what your trying to get at?

Yes I agree there were sects of early Christians that had different beliefs? The quote your saying you don't think is explained well even referenced the point.

i.e. whether there was an actual man at the genesis of the Christian faith

There must of been a very charismatic character that existed at the zenith of Christianity weather he was divine is a different argument but there plenty of evidence and common sense to suggest there was someone who injected the popularity of the faith.

He talks about how It is important to remember that for three centuries Christianity was a persecuted religion—many of their writings were deliberately destroyed by the Romans, another excellent point.

He talks about the spread from Jerusalem to Rome and the first generation of witnesses. Another excellent point.

"A prominent enough figure to be accused to have provoked the fire of Rome."

There all great points about the existence of a man we know as Jesus (the name matters not).

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by undo

 

Maybe some new evidence being discovered, can back up your theories ?
I believe it can.

www.darrencurnoe.net...

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

have they discovered anything new regarding the royals at abydos? last time time i read, anthropologists were saying that the royal skulls were vastly different from the rest, and contained an unknown race amidst the other more recognizable features. my memory on it is sketchy at the moment. i'm assuming the genome project might be able to shed more light on the subject.

reply to post by Miracula


Clockwork angels = cuckoo



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by KidOK

 

I think you got your signals crossed...No evidence for Nazareth?

Nazareth

As far as the rest of it, Yashua would not have been considered the greatest man of history at the time, nor did he want to be...

It is like this...

We all get invited to to a party...we all have a story to tell right after the party...does anyone here actually think our stories will all be the same story?

Without a doubt, the answer is NO!

What is not questioned is this... there was a party...

I meant during the time of Christ. My apologies as I should have been more clear.

Non-Christian Nazareth references don't make their way into texts until the 4th century.

The Old Testament does not mention it. The Talmud lists over 50 Galilean towns and doesn't mention Nazareth.

St. Paul doesn't mention the town.

Josephus (who lived just after the time of Christ) mentions 45 towns in Galilee, even a town only one mile from Nazareth called Japha, but not Nazareth. He even led military throughout the Galilean region.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Sure, why not? A rib women and a talking snake, a man living in the belly of a fish, A deity carefully and discriminately killing the first born son of every Egyptian family, 2 of every animal in a boat.............

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
Matthew 13:34

Perhaps, the concept of Jesus and Christ are also just parables, and these stories speak of nothing more than parables of some magical, romantic god/man/savior in a spiritual realm.

reply to post by Evanzsayz

No there is no proof at all the bible is true because there would not be atheists if it was proven to be true.

Atheism, that is the belief in "No God", existed long before the Bible. Those Books and writtings, are true because they are existing. Whether or not the contents are true, is up to individual itself. Atheism existed in the past, it exists at present, and will exist in the future.

When the bible was created a bunch of people in power got together and decided what would go in the bible and what wouldn't. Makes you wonder if there was an actual book that did provide some kind of proof of a God but was decided that the common folk should be kept in the dark and only the powerful people will know the truth of life and the unknown.

Partialy true. A bunch of people in power as you called them, they simply canonised the writtings to one single source, that is called Bible. The Bible it self, is a collection of Books and writtings. As to your claim, as what wouldn´t made it to the Bible, is true, but those Books and writtings, were never hidden, they were availiable back then as they are today.

Peace

i just re-read my posts and think i need to add a disclaimer. my view is that jesus was real and who he said he was, but that most of israel didn't recognize him. i think the evidence indicates the old testament is mostly an egyptian book in disguise and that the patriarchs were pharaohs, some of which would've been hyksos pharaohs. i think cleo faked her own death and went to israel and that julius did not impregnate her . i think the virgin birth doesn't mean the woman was a virgin but rather the baby was artificially inseminated in the woman

reply to post by jjsr420


A quick Googling and I found this: www.catholic.com...

Yes, it says Catholic (I know that's a bad word in these forums) but the blogger has some good points that may answer your questions.

Originally posted by jjsr420
That's my point. I'm looking for something OUTSIDE the bible that gives credence to Jesus.

There are many non-biblical references, Google them.

you could potentially track him thru the entire old world by just realizing that when he said he was jehovah but yet prayed to the father as if he were a separate entity, that he means he was also called jehovah in the old testament. to follow the trail thus far, you have to start in sumer. there were 3 gods in ancient sumer, all of whom were referred to as jehovah in the old testament. they were anu, enlil and enki. one of those was likely the jehovah that jesus claimed to be. this would indicate a non-biblical account, as per the op's request, verified by the biblical accounts.

for example, enki saves the noah figure from the flood. whereas enlil decrees the flood. both of those are meshed in the old testament, into one god named jehovah. enki appears to be the defender of humanity because he created them via genetics, and enlil seems to be the bane of what it means to be human, because he's constantly trying to bump them off, get their dna downgraded and etc. both of these have a heavenly father named anu. anu is like the judge, whereas enlil is like the prosecuting attorney and enki is like the defense attorney, and the defense attorney is textbook jesus.

reply to post by jjsr420

Any records to show Jesus actually existed? Any first-hand accounts written that aren't a part of the bible? Or does all the evidence come from the bible?

The tombs of his apostles were discovered, the men who walked with him and were close to him, with his Aramaic name "Yeshua" carved into them and crosses etched onto their ossuaries. There's a ton of archaeological evidence surrounding his existence and the accuracy of the bible. Tacitus mentions some things about him, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus, Seutonius, Julius Africanus, even the Talmud mentions him although the jews brand him a criminal and say some gnarly things etc. But if you're not willing to believe the accounts of the men who walked with him, then extrabiblical accounts won't help you either.

For the longest time atheists would make the claim he didn't exist based on the fact that no archaeological evidence was found about Pontius Pilate, until one day in 1961 evidence was found of, guess who? Pontius Pilate, which proved the bible was correct and he was the Prefect of Judea. In archaeology there's a saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Archeaology is a young science, and over time more evidence of him will be found, it's just a matter of time, but don't wait for it, you may die before that evidence is found.

Pontius Pilate

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Apart from likelihood of Pontius Pilate being a real historical person with archaeology also backing it up (the quip about "athiests" also amounting to a fallacy), not one thing you have mentioned here is true in the way claimed. The one about the apostles tombs seems like wishful thinking (though I would like to see your sources for it, or that the people existed at all).

None of the people you mention lived contemporaneously with jesus. Even if they are not forgeries, they give later accounts of christians and christian beliefs at best.

Josephus passage is a well known christian forgery/interpolation.

Pliny (the Younger) gives a 2nd century mention of christians (who we know existed) and their beliefs and practices.

Tacitus gives a 2nd century mention of christians and what they believe. Possibly derived from correspondence with Pliny, who had some troubles with them. Yet early christian writers don't reference it at all.....There are doubts about it's complete authenticity, though certainly not doubted by religious scholars (ie. delusionals with letters after their names).

Notedly, Tacitus' reference was not mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian (who quotes a great deal from Tacitus [8]) or Clement of Alexandria in the third century. It was likely added in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice, because no mention is made of it in any known text prior to then, but there are many later references.

It is unlikely the Talmud mentions the Jesus of the new testament and regardless, it was written between 3rd-5th centuries.

Julius Africanus (who lived in 2nd-3rd century) is quoted by another 9th century writer, as doubting the claim of someone called Thallus, that there was an eclipse of the sun at the time of the "supposed" crucifiction. That would be fair enough, because there wasn't one that could account for it (assuming any of it happened in the first place).

Suetonius doesn't mention jesus and there is some doubt whether he even refers to christians (though christians accept anything that could possibly be interpreted and spun in their favour).

Whether you believe jesus existed, was or wasn't magic, was simply a collection of stories or anything else, at this stage is just that, a belief. There is as much genuine historical evidence for jesus being a real person as there is for any other savior deity (none). Christianity is a myth that attempts to fulfill prophesy contained in still older myths. It is far more likely that the Robin Hood and his merry men myth was actually based on a real person(s). At least the first mentions of him don't appear to be obvious revelation/ fantasy/ hallucination.

rationalwiki.org...

www.godlessgeeks.com...