Evolution/Creation on Trial

[HitchSlap]

But belief in its size and contents are.Not even close.Oh, now we're going to factor in 'savior deity,' aren't we?

Ever since I showed you the article from Wikipedia that disagrees with your initial statement, you've been changing your words.

However, let's simplify this discussion and go back to the beginning.

In your opinion and right to believe what you want to believe, did (or does) Jesus exist or not?

Sorry, didn't read your wiki link. So not sure what you're referring to.
It's my current (and recent) opinion that it's highly unlikely a literal Jesus (as defined in the bible) existed.

 

[sfs]

Sorry, didn't read your wiki link. So not sure what you're referring to.
It's my current (and recent) opinion that it's highly unlikely a literal Jesus (as defined in the bible) existed.

What does "as defined in the Bible" mean? There's a pretty solid consensus among historians that a religious teacher named Jesus lived in Palestine, taught in parables, was known as a healer and was executed by the Romans. Exactly how much more about him can be known is subject to debate. There certainly is historical evidence for that Jesus -- probably more than one might expect for such a figure.

 

[crjmurray]

What does "as defined in the Bible" mean? There's a pretty solid consensus among historians that a religious teacher named Jesus lived in Palestine, taught in parables, was known as a healer and was executed by the Romans. Exactly how much more about him can be known is subject to debate. There certainly is historical evidence for that Jesus -- probably more than one might expect for such a figure.

Well unfortunately my thread that addressed this very topic was shut down before we could really get into it.

 

[HitchSlap]

What does "as defined in the Bible" mean? There's a pretty solid consensus among historians that a religious teacher named Jesus lived in Palestine, taught in parables, was known as a healer and was executed by the Romans. Exactly how much more about him can be known is subject to debate. There certainly is historical evidence for that Jesus -- probably more than one might expect for such a figure.

Such as?

 

[TillICollapse]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if it's been addressed already, but what are the quick cliff notes version that conclude Jesus never existed even as a historical figure ? Linking me to the appropriate post, if it exists, is fine, thanks.

 

[crjmurray]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if it's been addressed already, but what are the quick cliff notes version that conclude Jesus never existed even as a historical figure ? Linking me to the appropriate post, if it exists, is fine, thanks.

A lack of contemporary sources is the most commonly presented piece of evidence. Another is the similarities between Jesus and other pagan deities. This leads some to think that the story of Jesus was essentially invented whole cloth.

 

[HitchSlap]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if it's been addressed already, but what are the quick cliff notes version that conclude Jesus never existed even as a historical figure ? Linking me to the appropriate post, if it exists, is fine, thanks.

Bottom line, the kind and quality of evidence used by the historical method to make reasonable conclusions of an historical figure as likely to have existed, is nonexistent when applied to a literal Jesus. That is to say, there is no good evidence to suggest a literal Jesus (one described in the bible) actually lived.
Contrast all information that does exist with other archetypal myths (Rank-Raglan), and the idea of a savior deity myth is the best explanation then.

Carrier has done exhaustive research on the HoJ, and I recommend reading his work.

 

[TillICollapse]

Bottom line, the kind and quality of evidence used by the historical method to make reasonable conclusions of an historical figure as likely to have existed, is nonexistent when applied to a literal Jesus. That is to say, there is no good evidence to suggest a literal Jesus (one described in the bible) actually lived.
Contrast all information that does exist with other archetypal myths (Rank-Raglan), and the idea of a savior deity myth is the best explanation then.

Carrier has done exhaustive research on the HoJ, and I recommend reading his work.

A lack of contemporary sources is the most commonly presented piece of evidence. Another is the similarities between Jesus and other pagan deities. This leads some to think that the story of Jesus was essentially invented whole cloth.

------------------------------------

I have some free time coming up here in a few days, perhaps I'll devote some of it to studying up on this Thanks

 

[crjmurray]

------------------------------------

I have some free time coming up here in a few days, perhaps I'll devote some of it to studying up on this Thanks

Read into it and get back to me. I'll expect a full report. WITH REFERENCES. I need something tangible. Give me citations, sources, coffee, donuts, the whole shebang.

 

[TillICollapse]

Read into it and get back to me. I'll expect a full report. WITH REFERENCES. I need something tangible. Give me citations, sources, coffee, donuts, the whole shebang.

No guarantees lol ... my interests in these areas come and go with the ticking of the clock.

If I do dive in, however, I will give a report No coffee though, I quit that #**# a little over two years ago

 

[crjmurray]

No guarantees lol ... my interests in these areas come and go with the ticking of the clock.

If I do dive in, however, I will give a report No coffee though, I quit that #**# a little over two years ago

Dammit man! A report without coffee is like a day without sunshine!!!!!

 

[TillICollapse]

Dammit man! A report without coffee is like a day without sunshine!!!!!

 

[civilwarbuff]

If this were an actual trial, you wouldn't be allowed on the jury. Neither would I, for that matter. Lawyers typically go for jurors that come as close to being nuetral as possible.

Actually they go for jurors as close to stupid as possible...easier to manipulate.

 

[sfs]

Such as?

The letters of Paul. The shorter, and probably the original version of the longer, passage in Josephus. The gospels. Paul in particular is good evidence for the existence of the person, since he knew the guy's brother. (Yes, I'm familiar with the idea that the "brothers of the Lord" was some kind of honorary title in the movement. That strikes me as such a desperate and ludicrous attempt to salvage an implausible thesis that I find it hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.)

 

[crjmurray]

The letters of Paul. The shorter, and probably the original version of the longer, passage in Josephus. The gospels. Paul in particular is good evidence for the existence of the person, since he knew the guy's brother. (Yes, I'm familiar with the idea that the "brothers of the Lord" was some kind of honorary title in the movement. That strikes me as such a desperate and ludicrous attempt to salvage an implausible thesis that I find it hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.)

If we're to stick with the trial theme here, I would say that Josephus' passages would be deemed inadmissible as evidence. One passage was tampered with. We know that. I move that both passages be struck from the record so as not to lend credence to either side.

 

[Goonie]

If we're to stick with the trial theme here, I would say that Josephus' passages would be deemed inadmissible as evidence. One passage was tampered with. We know that. I move that both passages be struck from the record so as not to lend credence to either side.

Oh and all of the paul letters, half of them are believed to be fake, and the rest hearsay.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh and all of the paul letters, half of them are believed to be fake, and the rest hearsay.

Sounds like they really researched it out.

Looks like scholars call them "paul letters" now?

"Pauline epistles" must be gender-misleading or something?

 

[crjmurray]

Oh and all of the paul letters, half of them are believed to be fake, and the rest hearsay.

I'm not aware of that. Can you provide some additional information? I only commented about Josephus because anyone as smart as sfs knows that, of the two passages that mention Jesus, one of them was certainly tampered with.

 

[HitchSlap]

The letters of Paul. The shorter, and probably the original version of the longer, passage in Josephus. The gospels. Paul in particular is good evidence for the existence of the person, since he knew the guy's brother. (Yes, I'm familiar with the idea that the "brothers of the Lord" was some kind of honorary title in the movement. That strikes me as such a desperate and ludicrous attempt to salvage an implausible thesis that I find it hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.)

Thanks for the response. I'm busy over the weekend and will respond ASAP.

 

[Goonie]

I'm not aware of that. Can you provide some additional information? I only commented about Josephus because anyone as smart as sfs knows that, of the two passages that mention Jesus, one of them was certainly tampered with.

There are 13 epistles, of which only 7 are undisputed as far as I am aware. My source being bart d ehrman, in his popular series of books on the subject. I am no scholar, and do not claim to be. The wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles gives a good summary.