@pe7erpark3r
@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:
@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:
But the Bible says even Christians do not know how to pray.---- In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26)
Correct, the bible says that the spirit will help you pray.
Yeah and what is the proof of holy spirit ?
You wrote a verse written by Paul. That is nice but Paul himself originally never wrote Jesus’ story in his gospel. The original gospels have been changed according to time for editing and improving the omissions by the transcribers. It was added in the medieval time. Btw Paul himself never met with Jesus -
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. (Acts 9:8), The Jewish name of Saulus was Paul.
But Paul met and spoke with those who did.
Paul was an unknown writer. You need to mention some verse for your argument. Even if granted there was a verse. I already stated law of contradiction makes statement false. I really wrote in bold texts for indicating this rule.
But the Bible states nobody has ascended into the heaven - No man hath ascended up to heaven.” Not even Enoch or Elijah? (John 3:13).
And the bible states that the heavenly kingdom is among them in Jesus Christ.
Which verse says so ? Could you please mention any verse ? Law of contradiction makes statement false.
But the Bible states we should not follow our hearts-
Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring (Num 15:39)
And Lamentations 3:18 and 3:44 state he doesn’t listen to your prayers until you don't cover out yourself from clouds
Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer. (Lamentations 3:18 NIV)
You have covered yourself with a cloud so that no prayer can get through (Lamentations 3:44 NIV)
I followed my heart and found Batman in it. Yes I meditated on Batman’s comic book to make sense out of it. Thank you. Second point- a preposition must be true, if there is no contradiction in it. It is one law of logic.
You do not believe in batman to be real.
I believe in batman. How would you know I am lying or not ?
You did not find batman in your heart the same way we did find Christ...
I found batman into my heart. How can you refute this claim ?
Burden* Probabilities*
Ad-hominem argument. First respect you opponent and then you may debate.
I am very sorry. You are absolutely right. I should not have said it in this way...
to say people who cannot be proven to have existed with absolute certainty did not exist.
I said theistic God (with certain properties) does not exist with absolute certainty (in that debate, not this one). God of philosophy is different from God of religion. However, you have always inserted your christian God into a philosophical God.
Lets not return to the other discussion please. In this discussion the christians have spoken of the God of religion, and we spoke of Him in the language of religion, for this is how you can find Him.
You were talking about God of religion. The whole topic was made on a philosophical God. And here we are talking about Jesus did not exist as a person or not. However I repeat myself- I said a philosophical God did not exist in that debate with absolute certainty. I stick with thesis and I hope you will not misinterpret it. I wont misinterpret it either.
The main proof can be fossil evidence of him. 95 percent of humans existed- we can date their dead bodies with several scientific methods. We have dated 4 billion years ago paintings and our ancestors’ fossils too. We could date his fossil which existed 2000 years ago. Of course scientists have not found any fossil evidence of him- https://medium.com/predict/the-fossil-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-historical-jesus-11d7cdd4a5e7
This article argues that the people saying "Jesus does not exist" are making a positive claim and thus have the burden of proof. So yeah, good article.
He thinks negative claim is positive claim. But he did not say he is logically correct. Because negative claim talks about non-existence of someone as per as Wikipedia article states. Indeed, I apologize for sending incorrect weblink.
So I'll say again what I said before: you cannot expect to find a lot of documents on Jesus, because he was not at all a big political figure.
You never said to me so. Maybe you said to someone else. You are debating with me rn, not with ‘someone else’.
Woops sorry, that was in the topic's draft only. My mistake. I deleted that...
Fine.
Point holds however: it cannot be expected to find much: Jesus was a relatively unknown figure in the roman empire... even many of the prominent figures in the Israel of that time are not mentioned in non-religious texts, and they also existed. Many high priests of Israel are not mentioned at all, there names are all lost. And yet they were the most prominent political figures at their times...
Your argument is not hold sound. Can you please cite one contemporary name when Jesus existed ? I said please. Can you please name those Israel priests ? Can you please name one political figure of that era ?
And the documents that existed are lost in 2000 years of history. You simply cannot expect to find much other than religious texts.
There will be no reason to debate on this topic if we do not find anything else than his religious texts.
Yes, a religious text is enough for a debate about wether the person existed, but there is a lot more.
A comic is enough for a debate about whether the batman existed, but there is a lot more.
This is history. History is not science. Sadly :joy:
A straw-man argument. You cannot refute your own claim. I never said history is/was science or vice-versa. An evidence is something which can be provided for supporting one’s assertion in any type of debate.
Yes, but you will not find proof of many many historical events. Evidence yes. Proof no. And for many many historical events you will find an utter lack of evidence other than religious texts...
It is not my fault if he has lack evidences other than his religious texts. Show a single evidence first.
So consequently, even if you were right, that Jesus was added to Josephus Flavius writings and Tacitus writings, your claim that He did not exist is at best circumstancial.
Circumstantial*
Wehuuweehuu grammar police :yum:
you bear the burdon of proof.
I repeat myself- you started the debate with your assertion, I didn’t. I hold the negative position- Jesus did not historically existed. You cannot shift this burden towards me and it is argument from ignorance. You think your thesis is true because it is not proved to be false (supposedly). Until he is not proved true, it is reasonable to say that he did not exist.
No, there is enough evidence of him in the religious texts. It is reasonable to think he exists, since quite a few other clearly historical figures wrote religious texts about him. It is not true, that a religious text cannot count as evidence.
However I concede that it is reasonable to say he did not exist after providing good arguments as to why the religious texts are not enough evidence.
Religious texts are not even a claim, forget about the evidence. Come on. A book like the bible is not even a weak evidence for someone’s existence. Batman, Spiderman, Superman all those characters have books. We do not say they are “not enough evidences”. There is no evidence of them.
I would even say that the history that follows after Jesus death allows me to say, There is so much literature on him, so many people who follow his teachings, not only in the roman empire,
There are more than 12 Gods who were born on the same day of Jesus. And those birth of all 12 Gods were celebrated by the Romans. Romans followed their teachings too.
Yeah, they follow somebody's teachings about those Gods, which tend to be hundreds of years old. They did not follow a person's teaching, who lived only a few decades ago.
“A few decades ago” - here is a gap man. Thank you for describing it.
but also in the holy land, which is basically christian after the Jews are driven out by the romans in 70 AD. There is so much reason to assume that Jesus was indeed historical, simply by the impact he had in isreal alone,
Israel*
Israel is just as an ambivalent term as holy land. People know what holy land means. You know what it means. I will continue to use this term.
Argument from popularity - Impact never shows his existence. Non-impact of someone can show his existence too.
Yes I know what holy land stands for. Impact in Israel in 70 AD :joy: . Mesopotamian, Greek civilizations are so much older than your holy site.
Take one particularly weird-beard example, Spiritualism in the 19th century. This séance-and-ectoplasm set gained 3 million followers in the United States in just ten years; 13 by comparison it took Christianity nearly two hundred years to
come anywhere close.
Go back to more past (in 4th to 5th centuries). There were some non-orthodox religions which could not reside with Christianity. The scriptures of those religions (awesome books especially in 4th to 5th century) were not copied or destroyed by the Christians. In the fourth century, under the rule of Constantine, his opponents were compelled by threat of death and prison or by dispossession to fall in line.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190723132715/https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13812
So? Seems off-topic to me.
that you need to find more than just the lack of mentioning him in official roman writers, to say he did not exist.
Did they even mention originally ? Cite a credible website for your claim ‘original lack of mentioning’.
"Lack of mention" means that he wasn't mentioned. It is your argument that there is a lack of mention, not mine. I allowed this claim, despite not agreeing. And I said even if it was true, this is not enough.
I gave you six reasons. However, you chose only one reason. Why though ? Did you fall in love with one ? :joy:
Unless you don't learn how to respect someone, I cannot debate. Therefore, I leave both debates.
I am very sorry for my use of the word insane. I need to learn to not use such harsh language. It is not just insulting, but an exaggeration too. Exaggeration is a rhetorical trick, and as you know I despise those. Sadly its an old habit of mine to speak like this (also about myself) so please forgive.
Apologies accepted man. I am sorry for misinterpreting my thesis because you might have misunderstood my position (certainty one). I had no right to make anyone's fun. I am really sorry man.
@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:
One of the main reasons to why there is today (almost) a scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure is an archeological one: that there have been found many many christian house churches in Israel from the first century .
This means, that people who heard little of St. Paul, believed in christ. Many of them have propably known Jesus in person, or at least their parents have.
Oh scientific consensus ! What is the proof of that scientific consensus ? Scientific consensus are never based on argument from ignorance.
People had made a lot of temples for their Greek gods, Persian Gods, Egyptian Gods before the birth of Jesus. All have same stories like him. I described you so many Gods. I copy your argument for humor :joy:
One of the main reasons to why there is today (almost) a scientific consensus that hermes, Krishna, promenthus, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus/Dionysus, Attis, Isis, Hermes, Romulus, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Zalmoxis, Tammuz, Asclepius, Krishna, and Prometheus were a historical figure are an archaeological one: that there have been found many many Persian/Greek/Egyptian house prayer-places, temples in many places before the birth of Jesus. Again popularity cannot and never justify truth and reason
Saint Paul himself never met with your Jesus (who existed on this earth). He knew Jesus thru his revelations only. Many of them have probably known Jesus as a person or at least their parents have. - What is the proof of it ? - You have to be sure. It is an argument from probability.
As Mr. Carrier states, "archeological evidence secures the case: throughout Palestine, vast amounts of material evidence unmistakably document Jewish occupation and there is considerable evidence of pagan inhabitants but there is no material evidence of any Christian population until centuries later. “In fact, only in the third century does material evidence of a Christian presence anywhere in the Empire begin to match that of even minor pagan cults."
Mr. Saint Paul had schizophrenia. A physiological disordered person did spread rumor in a semi-illiterate society.
If he did never exist, such a presence of believers in the holy land during the first century is inexplicable.
Before the execution of Christians and in 4 to 5th centuries their (Persian, Greek, Egyptian gods) scriptures were burnt off. The Opponents and religion people of those Persian, Greek and Egypt mythologies and non-orthodox competing christian versions were compelled by threat of death and prison, or of dispossession to fall in line Under the rule of Roman Constantine. This is how the huge followers of mr. Christ came. You cannot even name a single eye witness.
By the way they belonged to a semi-illiterate society. It was an era of rumors and fake news. Therefore it was easy to gain followers thru threats and thru no-education.
.
@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:
@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:
Here is what Josephus wrote-
18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the
truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when,
upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those
who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored
to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
First let me quote wikipedia on the testamonium flavianum:
The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum. Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration. The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.
I agree with this definition. I too am convinced, that Flavius Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah.
Also it says about ‘interpolations’. Did you check which ones ? Interpolations include non-Josephean vocabulary and misuse of terms. Whole passage had interpolations. None had not listened the name of testimonium since 300 years. Whole testimonium was manipulated in 4th century.
The book was written on 93-94 AD. Jesus died on AD 33. Oh ! 60 years gap. Why did not he write his books 60 years ago though ? He was certainly not an eye-witness. Josephus was born on 37CE. It means he was not even born when Jesus died. :joy: Since we got to know there was a gap he was alleged for spreading the rumors thru oral traditions- Dupuis wrote about him: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors
20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James...”
The point should be noted the phrase “was called Christ” is awful and some transcriber inserted it. The later lines which Josephs referred to Jesus was the son of Damneus. That sentences looks like a christian was hoping to prove that Jesus existed.
The phrase "who was called Christ" is a perfectly common phrase. And this is why (quoting wiki again:)
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.
Josephus, when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 AD, clearly must have known about Christians, if not Jesus himself, since there is enough (archeological + other) evidence that they were present in Israel. If he didn't mention Christians at all, that would have to be considered unbelievable.
Sir, how you are even arguing here ? Only some scholars do agree with this paragraph’s authenticity. This chapter was originally written in 93-94 AD which was later interpolated. He never used the term Christ or messiah. He used charlatan term for all false messiahs which he described. Even thou he had a personal messiah named Empire Vespasian. Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.
. Josephus was a writer of Rome, not was of Israel. Btw there was no such word like 'Christianity' in that era. https://relevantmagazine.com/god/where-christian-name-really-came/
There was never ever a “tribe of Christians”
The name christian was first used in a derogatory way to denote the followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. With this in mind it becomes clear why Flavius Josephus – who did not believe in Christ to be the messiah – could use the term in this way. He too saw Jesus as a nobody, and he spoke in the language that the people of his time used. Tribe of Christians sounds rather derogatory in my ears, so it fits the idea.
He did not even mention Christ or messiah. Tribe of Christianity was related to an ethnic insult, not a religious insult. According to you, Josephus did contempt Christianity but why he could contempt to a race/tribe ?
Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice.
If you did read his texts carefully, you would know his texts were out of the context. There was a paragraph around his texts and it really interrupts his story line. This is how next paragraph begins from, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder...". It was referred to the previous paragraph in which Pilate along with his soldiers did massacre of Jews in Jerusalem
In the whole chapter (and the paragraph before) Josephus speaks about Pilates' reign in Jerusalem, and the things he dealt with. Thus speaking about Jesus at this place makes perfect sense. And to introduce the next important event during Pilates' time with "About the same time..." makes perfect sense. Of course I acknowledge that "another sad calamity" might still belong to the christian addition. Also a backreference to two or three paragraphs before is a perfectly normal thing.
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disor- der.” Another sad calamity? But what sad calamity? Josephus has just presented a commercial for Jesus, not a sad calamity! I hope you know we use another when we had mentioned one sad calamity. Without the Testimonium passage, the two passages flanking it flow seamlessly into each other. This fact alone is a tremendous indication that the passage is entirely fraudulent. this passage does not appear until the 4th century. For the first 300 years of its existence, there is no mention of the Testimonium anywhere. His books were popular in whole Europe. 12 guys never mentioned this passage but they gave a lot damn about mr. Josephus- Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- andria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius and Lactantius. Origen had never heard of the Testimonium either.
Regrading Pilate thing, none of the contemporary Roman shows that Pilate execute a guy named Jesus.
Josephus did write about minor-minor people of his time extensively. A single paragraph written on Messiah is impossible.
As said before, I do agree with the majority of scholars that Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah, nor consider him to be of great importance.
The point is not, he was a big figure. I said he wrote things about minor-minor people extensively.
Even though if he was a minor Guy/ non-reputed guy, Josephus must have written extensively about him.
Here have a logical proof-
Premise 1- Josephus wrote extensive things about minor-minor people.
Premise 2- Jesus was a minor people (your premise with -nor consider him to be of great importance.)
Conclusion- Josephus wrote extensive things about Jesus.
Conclusion is not true. He did not write about him extensively.
These are the persons who did not even write testionium flavium word- However they wrote about Josephus but did not about Jesus’ passage-
- Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)- He pored over Josephes’ work
- Theophilus (d. 180),- Bishop of Antioch and more
You can find my sources from here- http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
- You tagged me in this post and wrote absolute certainty. I proved that a philosophical God did not exist in that philosophical debate. EDIT- I hoped that you might have misunderstood me.
