• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Historical Jesus

Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
Click to expand...

Long ago here there was quite a bit of argle-bargle on this issue, That sub-forum got shut down. It all moved to:

http://earlywritings.com

I haven't been there for awhile. You might be better served going there to start with.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
Lion IRC said:
John? John who? Another invented character?
Click to expand...

Since John the Baptist and his misadventures are mentioned in Josephus Flavius, it's unlikely he was a total invention.
Click to expand...

Some think that John the Baptist was included in the gospels in such a way as to convince his followers to join Christianity. In short, he was coopted.
 
Where did Flavius get his information about this mythical Baptist dude?
 
Perhaps you misunderstood my question.

Where did Flavius get his information?
Surely he didn't invent John the Baptist.
 
Lion IRC said:
Perhaps you misunderstood my question.

Where did Flavius get his information?
Surely he didn't invent John the Baptist.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was a popular or well known person whom the authors wanted to include in their story. Sort of like how Captain America punched out Hitler or Spider-Man got a high five from Obama.
 
*sigh*

How did Flavius first come to believe there was a historical John the Baptist? Did he rely on second-hand testimony? Hearsay? Independent, unbiased sources? Anonymous manuscripts?
 
Lion IRC said:
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
I'm going with
Josephus was Roman, Romans didn't make street preachers divine
Click to expand...

No they made their politicians divine.

Oh yeah, and Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen. What did he say about Jesus?
Click to expand...
Jupiter
And just for shits and giggles who is Saul?keep it brief please
Honestly I rather the discussion stay about historical Jesus
 
If J is historical, a conclusion, what evidence makes it so? Top of the list is Josephus and the TF.

Better we start with a document Eusebius pulled out of his historical hat.
 
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
...just for shits and giggles who is Saul?
Click to expand...



...after you tell me where Flavius got his historical facts about John the Baptist.

If Flavius' sources were right about John, then he ought to be trusted about Jesus too.

Remember, you don't have to accept the supernatural explanation for historical fact claims about Jesus.

Rather than saying Jesus never existed, (because you don't accept miracles,) you can agree that He existed and/however His reported miracles had some non-theistic explanation.

Why cling to some stupid Jesus-Myther conspiracy when all you have to do is say...ok Jesus of Nazareth did exist, He did perform (apparent) miracles, He was Crucified just as the historical documents attest - but that the accepted historical facts can hypothetically be explained by non-supernatural alternative scenarios.
 
A historical fact claim is that people thought they saw a man named Jesus heal a leper.

You CAN accept that a real physical person named Jesus really did 'something' which caused real people the really believe that a miracle cure had happened - and yet still you can have an alternative explanation which in no way denies the historicity of the reported event.
 
Lion IRC said:
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
...just for shits and giggles who is Saul?
Click to expand...



...after you tell me where Flavius got his historical facts about John the Baptist.

If Flavius' sources were right about John, then he ought to be trusted about Jesus too.

Remember, you don't have to accept the supernatural explanation for historical fact claims about Jesus.

Rather than saying Jesus never existed, (because you don't accept miracles,) you can agree that He existed and/however His reported miracles had some non-theistic explanation.

Why cling to some stupid Jesus-Myther conspiracy when all you have to do is say...ok Jesus of Nazareth did exist, He did perform (apparent) miracles, He was Crucified just as the historical documents attest - but that the accepted historical facts can hypothetically be explained by non-supernatural alternative scenarios.
Click to expand...

Except the earliest copy of Joseph we have dates to the 7th century. Plenty of time to doctor Josephus' mention of Jesus. We don't know if it was made up from whole clothe, or changed from a more innocuous mention of Jesus.
 
Lion IRC said:
A historical fact claim is that people thought they saw a man named Jesus heal a leper.

You CAN accept that a real physical person named Jesus really did 'something' which caused real people the really believe that a miracle cure had happened - and yet still you can have an alternative explanation which in no way denies the historicity of the reported event.
Click to expand...

The historicity of what reported events? That Jesus' corpse reanimated itself and flew up into space? That Jesus created food to sate the hunger of many many people from crumbs? That Jesus walked on water? That Jesus healed sick people with a touch? Where are these events reported and what is the evidence to suggest that these stories should be considered seriously?
 
Lion IRC said:
Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
...just for shits and giggles who is Saul?
Click to expand...



...after you tell me where Flavius got his historical facts about John the Baptist.

If Flavius' sources were right about John, then he ought to be trusted about Jesus too.

Remember, you don't have to accept the supernatural explanation for historical fact claims about Jesus.

Rather than saying Jesus never existed, (because you don't accept miracles,) you can agree that He existed and/however His reported miracles had some non-theistic explanation.

Why cling to some stupid Jesus-Myther conspiracy when all you have to do is say...ok Jesus of Nazareth did exist, He did perform (apparent) miracles, He was Crucified just as the historical documents attest - but that the accepted historical facts can hypothetically be explained by non-supernatural alternative scenarios.
Click to expand...
What evidence is there that the entry is a historical fact? I already told you it is an interpolation
I gave my reasons
So what evidence do you have?
Romans didn't make street preachers divine and the existence of interpolation in his work is sufficient to dismiss the entry
And historical Jesus is biblical Jesus, just so you know
The conspiracy is thinking that they are different people
Do you think that the entry describes a Jesus that is not biblical Jesus?
If so then that removes the entry from the argument that biblical Jesus existed
 
Last edited:
You give two consecutive, snide reps to someone who is trying to have a conversation.
Plus you have three times refused to answer where Flavius got his information.
Have a nice life. Bye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom