Unraveling the Jesus Myth

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Z "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a nonsensical question because both "yes" and "no" imply you beat your wife. It's not a question I'd expect you to answer. It's a question I'd expect you to clarify with a proper answer. While the one you posed to me isn't the catch 22 of the wife beating inquiry, it is no less invalid & incomplete. Allow me to complete the question: "Why do you think a lack of evidence of someone's completely unsupported and absurdist existence is proof that they never existed?" This question answers itself.

That's the only part of your post that answers my question, and it doesn't answer it. Your mention of the Catch-22 is highly irrelevant and serves no purpose.

The question isn't absurd at all. Don't reword it. Just answer it.

It's a simple question:

"Why do you think a lack of evidence of someone's existence is proof that they never existed?"

[Zhavric]

Quote by: arielmessenger No matter what though, without doubt, a great Spirit descended on the Holy Land in the 200 year period between 100 BC and 100 AD, a Spirit of Christ that embodied Itself in the man Yeishu and his teachings and inspiring the stories about the super-GodMan Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

No... no, that didn't happen. That's what's known as "folklore". In this thread we're not interested in folklore or your unsupported claims. Provide evidence or concede that you have none.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The question isn't absurd at all. Don't reword it. Just answer it.

Your question is a straw man. You have mischaracterized my argument and attacked that mischaracterization.

I have never stated "a lack of evidence of someone's existence is proof that they never existed". I challenge you to quote me where I made such a statement. Do so in your next post (without quote mining) or concede this part of the debate. I bolded "someone's" because it's incomplete; someone implies a normal everyday person who does normal everyday sort of things. Someone isn't specific enough to address Jesus who (as Christians claim) isn't a normal everyday person and did things normal everyday people absolutely cannot do.

This is why I took the time in my last post to correct your silly question. You are under no obligation to defend a stance you have never taken and neither am I.

Please argue more honestly; I will entetain no more silly claims that I 'haven't answered your question'.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

Why not just answer the question? It's perfectly valid.

You are stating that since there is no evidence that a person did exist, it means that they didn't exist.

I'm asking why you think that is correct.

Now let's look at what you bolded. You want me to quote you without quoting you? I think you're desperate.

Your bolding of the word someone is basically your way of evasion that I've watched you do for about a year now. I guess I'm just the next person to point it out.

In your opening post, you said that Jesus didn't exist and then tried to support that statement by saying that since your four references give no specific references, then he didn't exist.

You are, quite literally, saying that since there is no evidence of him then he didn't exist.

I'm just trying to find out why you think that is legitimate support.

It is not a silly question. If you have a problem answering it or can't keep a level head in your response, don't bother.

[Zhavric]

I see you were unable to quote me as stating "a lack of evidence of someone's existence is proof that they never existed". Good. I'm glad that's settled.

Now you're going to need to begin arguing honestly. You've taken a step in that direction, but we still have a long way to go.

Since we agree that my stance is not "a lack of evidence of someone's existence is proof that they never existed" you're going to need to stop evading and address some of the points that I've actually made. As I stated, neither you nor I are under any obligation to argue a stance we've never taken so I will entertain no more of your foolish insistance I defend a position I do not hold.

I've corrected your question and answered it. Twice. I'll not do it a third time.

Stop posting your straw man and get back to the discussion in your next post or I will conclude you are unwilling or unable to. I'm not going to slog through your pointless posts for pages on end nor will I deal with your playground tactics:

ZNFYRH: "Why do you think 1+1=3?"

Zhavric: "I don't. I've never said that. The question would be 1+2 not 1+1."

ZNFYRH: "You cant answer my first question so u lose!1!!!lol!11!!!!elevenl!!!111"
It's no way to debate, my friend. Knock it off.

[ZNFYRH]

Never mind. You can't seem to handle not being a belligerent for two posts. I'll not bother.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Never mind.

I accept your concession. Honestly, throwing out a straw man and then continuing to ask it after I exposed it for what it was... well that was just silly.

[ZNFYRH]

It's not a concession.

It's acknowledging that you slide past the rules with your attitude and stepping out before it annoys others.

Trust me, you avoiding answering a perfectly valid question. The fact that you're acting this way and I'm now done with you communicates more than anything else.

Enjoy.

[dthmstr254]

Ok, since you want to use that list, I will edit it for accuracy to the times and culture of Jesus's days:

Assuming that Jesus existed and was associated with many lower class people (fishermen, tax collectors, etc.) prior to the destruction of the temple you would expect to see the following

• Mention of Jesus by his disciples (we have that in Matthew, John, and the epistle of Peter)
• Mention of Jesus by associates of his disciples (we have that in the Pauline Epistles, the general epistles, and the gospels of Mark and Luke)
• Copies of the above listed items dating to before the destruction of the temple (I have seen with my own two eyes some of these copies, so don't tell me they don't exist.
• Due to the secretive way he was arrested, you would not expect records of his arrest or trial. This rests on the culture and laws of the time. Back then, it was considered illegal to arrest and hold a trial at night. It was done that way to prevent things like what is described in the gospels from happening.
• Other recordings of what He did outside of the above list. (We have Papias, Josephus, and Tacitus mentioning him in one way or another.)

The reason I say his trial would not be recorded is to keep people from bringing in true witnesses. If nobody knew about the trial, then the Sanhedrin and Pharisees would have complete control of the situation.

[arielmessenger]

Quote by: arielmessenger View Post
No matter what though, without doubt, a great Spirit descended on the Holy Land in the 200 year period between 100 BC and 100 AD, a Spirit of Christ that embodied Itself in the man Yeishu and his teachings and inspiring the stories about the super-GodMan Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

Zavric,

"No... no, that didn't happen. That's what's known as "folklore". In this thread we're not interested in folklore or your unsupported claims. Provide evidence or concede that you have none."

Zav, you try to provide evidence that the origin of Christianity Did Not inspire a total transformation of Western Civilization beginning with Rome? And you're trying to say nothing happened to inspire the most far-reaching social transformation that ever took place on earth is nothing but "folklore" and "unsupported claims?" No wonder you're still an atheist..you can'
t see what's right in front of you.

[kaine]

edit

[Jack]

Let's keep the comments directed toward the topic and not at one another. If in doubt, read the rules.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Kamehameha34]

The presence or absence of evidence for a claim has nothing to do with evidence against it.

What you have, is a whole lotta absence of evidence for the historical Jesus. Absence of evidence doesn't equate affirmation of the negative.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ZN brought this up a while ago, but you sidestepped it with claims that "Jesus" isn't comparable to "someone". Logically sterilized, here is the point he was trying to raise:

You think that a lack of evidence for "X" equates to evidence against "X".

However, you claim that X is inherently false. You should be providing the evidence you have that shows "X" is an absurd claim.


Since you are trying to prove X false, evidence (or lack thereof) for X is now irrelevant.

[ZNFYRH]

Kame,

Which "Z" are you talking about?

But I agree.

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence"

It's fallacious, I believe, though I don't know which one.

[Kamehameha34]

Argument from ignorance.

I was talking about you - I wouldn't cite an argument by Zhavric to counter another argument by Zhavric

[ZNFYRH]

Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the validity of "absence of evidence"... but ONLY if X is opposite of Y, and Y is already proven true.

Hell, they "proved" the Sun revolved around the Earth and then "proved" it didn't. That's when I think Z's argument is valid.

But since no one has proved either way that Jesus existed, "absence of evidence" is fallacious. And kinda silly, if you ask me.

[Kamehameha34]

I don't think absence of evidence is relevant in a matter of determining falsehood.

If X is opposite to Y, and Y is proven true, then that fact alone would be enough to declare X false. A lack of evidence for X, the claim that is already proven false, wouldn't be necessary to establish.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It's not a concession.

Of course it was. Don't be silly. It's the only honest resolution to the predicament you made for yourself by demanding I defend a position I clearly haven't taken.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Assuming that Jesus existed and was associated with many lower class people (fishermen, tax collectors, etc.) prior to the destruction of the temple you would expect to see the following

Massive assumption... on par with "Assuming that Superman existed and was assocated with reporters and cops..."

Mention of Jesus by his disciples (we have that in Matthew, John, and the epistle of Peter)

More 'Superman' logic... trying to evidence the Man of Steel with Lois Lane.

The disciples are every bit as fictional as their mythical teacher. Each and every one of them contrived to have multiple death and ridiculous journeys. Take Peter: Anicetus (writing in the 2nd century) invented the idea Peter was beheaded by Nero. The Clementines have Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Origen writing in the third century claims Peter had been crucified upside down.

It's exactly the sort of unsupported invention the church is known for.

Mention of Jesus by associates of his disciples (we have that in the Pauline Epistles, the general epistles, and the gospels of Mark and Luke)

See above. We have no idea when the Pauline Epistles were written. The evidence apologists use to date them is completely circular: the apostles date the epistles and the epistles date the apostles. You're going to need to do better than fallacies, my friend.

So far, you're not even arguing logically; you're just reciting the litany of Christian dogma that was handed to you.

Copies of the above listed items dating to before the destruction of the temple (I have seen with my own two eyes some of these copies, so don't tell me they don't exist.

No. You haven't. They don't exist. I challenged you to prove their existence. You have failed to meet this challenge. We shall consider this point settled from here on out until you can provide support.

Due to the secretive way he was arrested, you would not expect records of his arrest or trial. This rests on the culture and laws of the time. Back then, it was considered illegal to arrest and hold a trial at night. It was done that way to prevent things like what is described in the gospels from happening.

Oh, how convenient? I see you've switched gears form recitation of litany to making tremendous cop-outs. Interesting.

Other recordings of what He did outside of the above list. (We have Papias, Josephus, and Tacitus mentioning him in one way or another.)

Papias is dated to the first quarter of the second century, Josephus' work has been tampered with & mentions an entire host of Jesuses (Jesi?) which form the basis of the modern day Christ myth and Tacitus, writing in the later half of the first century / early second century was the first in a long line of people to see Christians and assume a Christ. His writing in absolutely no way evidences the mythic godman.

Oh? That's it? That's the end of your list? Well, allow me to add what we really would have seen if your mythic godman had shown up & died circa 33 ce.

• We'd see mention of Jesus by Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary of the early Essenes (now thought to be the first Chritians) and wrote about Pilate. He was a hellenized Jewish philosopher who would have absolutely leapt at the idea of an incarnate Jewish god showing up in a place we know he visited.
• We'd expect to see a lot more about the dead people Jesus allegedly brought back to life. The gospels devote little more than a paragraph to the subject. These individuals would have been (had they existed) living & breathing proof Jesus was the real McCoy. The Romans, meticulous record keepers, would have obviously done something about them. The fact they're mentioned nearly in passing smacks of the tall tales you'd hear on a playground between children. "Yeah! There was this dog so big and.... and it chased me... and it bit me... and I died... but then I came back lol."
• We'd expect to see an explosion of Christianity around 33ce. Jesus allegedly existed in one of the most literate places on the planet at the time (having a written religion will do that for you) with Pax Romana ensuring safe passage... there is no conspiracy that could have silenced the news of the godman.
• We'd expect to see writings from the time reflect much more of Jesus either directly ("I saw Jesus!") or indirectly ("This guy won't shut up about Jesus.").

Now, let's see how you did...

Quote by: Me 2) Claiming it doesn't cut it. You're going to have to provide evidence we have copies of the epistles dating from before 70 ce. You claimed this a second time in your post and it really is nonsensical. Provide evidence in your next contribution to this thread or I will conclude you are unable or unwilling to do so. I will not entertain three pages of evasion from you as you argue assumptions as though they're proven.

As mentioned above, you failed here. All you did was demand I believe your unsupported claim. If there are copies of these documents then surely you can find a photograph of one with a link, yes?

Apparently not.

You also failed utterly to address critical parts of my argument:

Philo of Alexandria (who you've not even addressed) is an excellent of example of someone who would have written about Jesus had he existed.

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths.

Christianity was contrived to get people to follow it even if they were being persecuted. The guilt over an incarnate godman was used as the glue to hold this flimsy set of claims together.

what we have is a long tradition of people assuming Jesus existed.

By the by, if you took leave of your sense, spit on a cross and flushed pages of a bible down a toilet how would you feel afterwards? Guilty? Interesting...

You do realize that your claim as a Christian is the gospel Jesus was the Jewish messiah, but wasn't a conqueror, right?

Well, we know this is nonsense. Plenty of things never existed which we think of quite a bit. Mormonism & Scientology come to mind as do many urban legends (many of which have no factual basis or a radically different beginning).

The disciples weren't anything. They never existed either.

Were you planning on addressing any of those issues or shall I conclude you agree with my stance?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: arielmessenger Zav, you try to provide evidence that the origin of Christianity Did Not inspire a total transformation of Western Civilization beginning with Rome?

Appeal to popular opinion. Scientology & Mormonism have made huge changes in western civilization. Think they're both true?

And you're trying to say nothing happened to inspire the most far-reaching social transformation that ever took place on earth is nothing but "folklore" and "unsupported claims?"

Straw man.

Something happened... but that something certainly wasn't what transpired in the gospels. Like Mormonism, a group of individuals contrived a new religion from an existing one.

No wonder you're still an atheist..you can't see what's right in front of you.

With logic like that, no wonder you're still a theist.