Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion was created by DisownedSky (905171) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did Jesus exist? More

Did Jesus exist?

Comments Filter:
  • Otherwise, explain Padre Pio's stigmata, witnesses by thousands. [padrepio.com]

    If Jesus wasn't real, why would His wounds manifest in some of His believers?

    As far as the historical documents: Lack of Evidence does not proof a negative - just because any "contemporary" documentation hasn't been found, doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist.

    Some atheists like to use that same arguments for Evolution: "Just because we haven't found any evidence in the fossil record doesn't mean evolution is false".

    Unfortunately, for some,

    • I pick Number 2 [theskepticsguide.org] here, although it's not alone. A related fallacy is shifting the burden [nizkor.org].

      For a proposition to be worthy of even provisional acceptance (the only kind I ever offer), doesn't it need to have some evidence in support of it? Otherwise, what propositions would you reject?

      • Speaking of shifting the burden, this page [bede.org.uk] puts it very well:

        Once Christianity was established as a major cult in the Empire then Jesus became rather more interesting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in the early second century. However, Jesus Mythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would

    • Otherwise, explain Padre Pio's stigmata, witnesses by thousands.

      What's to explain? What's the objective evidence? "Witnessed by thousands" doesn't cut it for me. Everyday, scam artists like Benny Hinn [google.com] or Sylvia Browne [google.com] convince thousands, even millions that they have miraculous powers. What about Sai Baba [wikipedia.org]? Do his purported miracles, witnessed by millions, make his brand of Hinduism true? Some people are still even impressed with Uri Geller, and it's not possible to be any more discredited than he is.

    • Otherwise, explain macaroni and cheese, eaten by hundreds of millions! [wikipedia.org]

      If HIS noodlage [venganza.org] wasn't real, why would so many people enjoy pasta?

      As far as the historical documents: Lack of Evidence does not proof a negative - just because any "contemporary" documentation hasn't been found, doesn't mean the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER [venganza.org] didn't exist.

      Some deists like to use that same arguments for the existence of false gods: "Just because we haven't found any physical evidence doesn't mean god is false".

      Unfort

  • The article uses some pretty flimsy and misleading arguments.

    For one thing, the passage attacking the Gospels as supposedly not coming from the Apostles named is a red herring. What matters to us Christians is less the specific name of the person writing and more the fact that these texts were used in the earliest days of the Church, within living memory of the events that took place. The Gospel of John, for example, was mentioned and quoted as early as 107 by Ignatius of Antioch; some sources claim Matth

  • Wikipedia has a good summary on the subject: [wikipedia.org]

    "The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[72]

    Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historic

  • The tale of a son of a god being born of a mortal woman is much older than Christianity. The early church most likely adopted the savior concept as they did pagan holidays, etc.

    Here's an excellent documentary on this very topic - "The God Who Wasn't There"

    http://www.thegodmovie.com

  • i've alway pondered and researched a bit whether he existed. it always seemed like there was a strong possibility that jesus, as a character, was fabricated from stories told--perhaps about "jesus-like" people. fact is, there's not one shred of proof that he existed...much the same way in which there's no proof that moses existed.

    one thing is for sure, if he did exist, the stories were embellished beyond all recognition. :)

    • Jesus is mostly likely an amalgam of several mythical gods and heroes and the many charismatic religious leaders who were making the rounds at about that time. There were probably some these latter who were influenced by Buddhism, and thus the non-violence and universal love aspects of some of the gospel teachings. The more miraculous and "divine" aspects of teh gospels appear to derive from Greek and Egyptian myths. Jesus was one of a long line of dead and resurrected gods born of a virgin.

      If I have t

    • Did you bother to read the Wikipedia article I linked? Apparently not. :-P

      Here, try again. [wikipedia.org] Quote: " A very small minority argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes." For something with "not a shred" of evidence, there seem to be a lot of historians who disagree with you. :-P

      The vast majority of researchers agree that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. "Not a shred" of proof Jesus exi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by btlzu2 ( 99039 ) *
        since history is "decided by the victors" and there are many things in history that could be dead wrong due specifically to years of "oral tradition", i'm still skeptical about it. like i said, if he did exist, they attributed a shitload of mythology to him. at best he was some guy who said some nice things and some utterly whacked out things and pissed off the wrong people.

        Ockham's Razor. No gods in the mix. No son of god. No crucifixion for "washing away sins". No "virgin birth". Get rid of the ext

        • since history is "decided by the victors" and there are many things in history that could be dead wrong due specifically to years of "oral tradition", i'm still skeptical about it.

          Then explain why those using the historical-critical method -- those trying to avoid the very bias you imply people supporting the historicity of Jesus have -- still overwhelmingly come to the conclusion Jesus existed.

          Ockham's Razor works the other way. If that many learned and scientifically-minded people are willing to acc

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by btlzu2 ( 99039 ) *
            dude. read what i said. i never fully said i believe he doesn't exist and i'm not even willing to make that argument. all i'm saying is i could see him not ever existing or if he did exist, it's obvious that a lot of stuff was attributed to him that came from prior mythology. frankly, i don't have a whole lot of confidence in what people believed or wrote 2000 years ago--especially when it comes to matters of faith healing and "raising from the dead". a simpler explanation is that they didn't know what

            • all i'm saying is i could see him not ever existing or if he did exist, it's obvious that a lot of stuff was attributed to him that came from prior mythology.

              There is just as much textual evidence to support his existence as there is for many other historical figures whose existence is not seriously in doubt -- including texts containing reference to miracles and other supernatural phenomena (Alexander the Great is one commonly-cited example).

              The reason I got irritated is you chimed in in support of an

      • That particular fallacy is called the argument from authority, and is even more egregious (if that's possible) when it is also "the argument from Wikipedia authority."

        It's also called "Argument by intimidation." A common refuge of those who lack evidence and compelling arugment.

        • lawlz. Nice try. More than likely if enough historians agree on something, then there's a pretty damned good chance it's true. If I claimed it as a proof, it would be a logical fallacy. But I didn't. So it isn't. :-P

          Can you, yourself, prove evolution is true? Ah. Of course not. You have to "appeal to authority" (using your standard) by quoting experts. Thus I call bullshit on your claim I engaged in a fallacy.

          Secondly, your linked article engages in a nice bit of circular reasoning that goes like this:

          • Yes, I can "prove" evolution is true (prove, in the sense that the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance). And I'm not even a paleobiologist. All the "scientific" creationist claims have been roundly debunked six ways to Sunday, exposed for the pseudoscientific rubbish it is (yes,all the details are available - no need to appeal to authority). All I would need is any decent natural history museum. Though more complex, the molecular evidence is by itself profoundly [drzach.net]

            • Yes, I can "prove" evolution is true (prove, in the sense that the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance).

              It is equally perverse to withhold acceptance of the idea that a person named Jesus existed from around 1 AD to 33 AD. :-P

              yes,all the details are available - no need to appeal to authority

              I provided details that those authorities offered. Thus I did not, by your own definition, appeal to authority. Linking to a referenced article on Wikipedia is not an "

        • Oh, and at least Wikipedia links and corroborates its sources. It's not perfect, but it's a damned good place to start. :-P

          It's also called "Argument by intimidation." A common refuge of those who lack evidence and compelling arugment.

          LOL. Big words. Color me unimpressed, especially since all you've done is parrot the site you linked in the first place and not provided ANY additional independent corroboration or argument, let alone defend what it had to say.

          Quit hiding behind the stupid charges of f

          • Oh, and at least Wikipedia links and corroborates its sources

            LMAO. I just noticed you reference Wikipedia on your own site [earthlink.net] right up there with CSICOP and various skeptics and now you pooh-pooh it when it contradicts you roundly.

            If it's so worthless, maybe you should consider removing the link. :-P

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

  • No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

    The same is true for, say, Leif Ericsson. So did he not exist?

    There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

    We have no contemporary records of Pilate executing anyone. So what?

    Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and n

Slashdot Top Deals

These screamingly hilarious gogs ensure owners of X Ray Gogs to be the life of any party. -- X-Ray Gogs Instructions

Close