Jesus would have tweeted like Trump.

[franklinstower]

No, not wrong. You're clearly not accepting the modern scholarly historical position on Jesus and try to find reasons why that's actually a rational position and why they're wrong.
You sound like a climate-change denier.

Or a flat earther or an evolution denier. He IS what he protests against.

 

[lecter]

Or a flat earther or an evolution denier. He IS what he protests against.

When you're so 'rational' that you have to call the academic consensus view an argumentum ad populum


Sounds familiar.

 

[Fawlty]

You said there was evidence didn't you? Only first hand accounts/eye witnesses count as evidence so you did say you had first hand accounts.

This isn't quite how ancient history works. You're right in the sense that we wouldn't accept Jesus-type evidence today, for events much nearer to today. But scholars of ancient history are often going off really shitty sources because there just isn't very much (or any) hard evidence available. I recommend talking to a real scholar about it, who is willing to explain- it's an enlightening conversation.

 

[hillelslovak87]

A. Jesus would probably have better English skills than Trump, somehow.

B. Jesus would have lost his shit seeing a wheelbarrow, and Jesus believed in witches, so I cant see anything he could provide to our discourse.

 

[Fawlty]

If you read my posts on this subject you will see that I only ever argued for the Jesus of history -- at least on this thread.

You seem to know a lot about history from your post and this is going to cause me to do a lot of research. It is not that I haven't all ready its just that it is confusing to me that anyone who knows history from that period is still denying the physical existence of Jesus. There is a lot written of him by people in his own day who have no dog in the race......

What would be the motive for a respected pagan historian accounting of Jesus, his reputation as healer and religious leader but also presenting him a bit negatively? For me these accounts settle totally the.question of his real historical existence.

It is interesting that Dawkins concedes this point and admits to Jesus existence in a debate with Lennox the mathematician Christian.

If there was no historical Jesus.why would a pagan historian in his day.write of him as a real person?

I don't know all that much about the history, I've just spent some time on this specific topic.

I can't speculate about motives (at least not usefully) of historians, but I assume you're talking about Tacitus in this case. His account records that there were Christians persecuted for their beliefs, which is well established, and he dates it to late Nero, Tacitus writes only about 50 years after the persecution. That is pretty good evidence that people in Rome believed a thing that supposedly came out of Judea, and that they were persecuted for it. Where it's not helpful is establishing any link between events in Judea and this later belief in Rome, because it merely restates beliefs of Christians at the time (yr ~120), referring to a time that happened a generation after Jesus. But I do agree it's the best piece of writing we have and the best place to make an argument.

 

[franklinstower]

I don't know all that much about the history, I've just spent some time on this specific topic.

I can't speculate about motives (at least not usefully) of historians, but I assume you're talking about Tacitus in this case. His account records that there were Christians persecuted for their beliefs, which is well established, and he dates it to late Nero, Tacitus writes only about 50 years after the persecution. That is pretty good evidence that people in Rome believed a thing that supposedly came out of Judea, and that they were persecuted for it. Where it's not helpful is establishing any link between events in Judea and this later belief in Rome, because it merely restates beliefs of Christians at the time (yr ~120), referring to a time that happened a generation after Jesus. But I do agree it's the best piece of writing we have and the best place to make an argument.

I also did some research again to make sure that I was not mistaken in my point about consensus among historians about the existence of Jesus. I was not. There is almost unanimous agreement on this account. Jesus was a real man, religious leader with the reputation of being quite a healer.

I did not make this next claim but once you accept modern historians stance on this you can do as they do which is turn to the New Testament as more than mythology. I am not arguing here that the supernatural accounts are valid but only that the new testament is based however loosely on real people.

 

[TSO]

No, not wrong. You're clearly not accepting the modern scholarly historical position on Jesus and try to find reasons why that's actually a rational position and why they're wrong.
You sound like a climate-change denier.

No, I don't accept things that have no evidence. So I don't accept a historical person with zero evidence of him existing.

 

[TSO]

I don't know all that much about the history, I've just spent some time on this specific topic.

I can't speculate about motives (at least not usefully) of historians, but I assume you're talking about Tacitus in this case. His account records that there were Christians persecuted for their beliefs, which is well established, and he dates it to late Nero, Tacitus writes only about 50 years after the persecution. That is pretty good evidence that people in Rome believed a thing that supposedly came out of Judea, and that they were persecuted for it. Where it's not helpful is establishing any link between events in Judea and this later belief in Rome, because it merely restates beliefs of Christians at the time (yr ~120), referring to a time that happened a generation after Jesus. But I do agree it's the best piece of writing we have and the best place to make an argument.

Less than 50 years after 1947 there were already alien cults in New Mexico near Roswell.

 

[TSO]

This isn't quite how ancient history works. You're right in the sense that we wouldn't accept Jesus-type evidence today, for events much nearer to today. But scholars of ancient history are often going off really shitty sources because there just isn't very much (or any) hard evidence available. I recommend talking to a real scholar about it, who is willing to explain- it's an enlightening conversation.

It's how it works. If you can't find contemporary writings, eye witnesses, or physical evidence for something you don't have a reason to believe it.

 

[TSO]

Or a flat earther or an evolution denier. He IS what he protests against.

Except I can demonstrate all the things your trying to compare my stance to. That's how dumb your position is, you take an untenable position and try to associate it with provable science.

 

[franklinstower]

Except I can demonstrate all the things your trying to compare my stance to. That's how dumb your position is, you take an untenable position and try to associate it with provable science.

No you cant defend your.position at all. You cane even explain WHY you disagree with historians position on the matter.

I actually think you are stuck in this conversation dead wrong but hoping if you keep acting like your not no one dill notice. Sad.

 

[TSO]

No you cant defend your.position at all. You cane even explain WHY you disagree with historians position on the matter.

I actually think you are stuck in this conversation dead wrong but hoping if you keep acting like your not no one dill notice. Sad.

I've explained why I don't agree with them and the standards I set several times. You've demonstrated you.dont comprehend what that means and instead just side with people you see as authorities on the subject.

 

[Fawlty]

I also did some research again to make sure that I was not mistaken in my point about consensus among historians about the existence of Jesus. I was not. There is almost unanimous agreement on this account. Jesus was a real man, religious leader with the reputation of being quite a healer.

I did not make this next claim but once you accept modern historians stance on this you can do as they do which is turn to the New Testament as more than mythology. I am not arguing here that the supernatural accounts are valid but only that the new testament is based however loosely on real people.

I accept that the New Testament is more than just mythology. It is evidence and it has historical value, just not as much as we would like.

 

[Fawlty]

Less than 50 years after 1947 there were already alien cults in New Mexico near Roswell.

That's a good point. The holes in the timeline leave a ton of room for cults to spring up (which is what I think happened).

 

[Fawlty]

It's how it works. If you can't find contemporary writings, eye witnesses, or physical evidence for something you don't have a reason to believe it.

"Reason to believe" is a separate claim from "evidence." I agree that there isn't much reason to believe, but there is still evidence. It's not convincing evidence because it's the same shit evidence that is really common in ancient history. But like the case with Pilate, the New Testament is evidence of his existence, because it corroborates the archaeological find.

 

[EL GOAT]

Jesus wouldve marched into the White House and beat the fuck out of trump.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Look dadda! I can color in the lines now!

 

[franklinstower]

I accept that the New Testament is more than just mythology. It is evidence and it has historical value, just not as much as we would like.

Even though I disagree on how useful the New Testament is and actually accept the Jesus of faith-- I totally respect your position as it is reasonable to come to that position.