If people want to decide that 4 independent sources written within 100 years of something happening is not strong evidence then that’s fine, but if you apply that burden of proof to everything then you’re wiping out the majority of recorded history which seems like an odd stance to take and one that very clearly puts you at odds with the majority.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Had this argument before and got shouted down because Bart ehrman says soThere is absolutely no conclusive proof Jesus was real. None. If there is, let’s see it. Messages from which god? Horus was 3,000 years BC. Was god testing the water with him and the other dozen with the same story?
Also, no Roman record of him. The Jewish myth was a messiah was coming to kick their arse. According to the deluded, he attracted crowds of thousands, sauntered into Bethlehem on a donkey, the lazy bastard, crowds, palm leaves et al. The Romans where brutal with any potential threat to their Enoure, it’s well documented, but for some reason not a word, no one asked, should we send another Legion just in case? Nothing. It’s all absolute bollocks.
Josephus a Roman wrote nearly a century after and he mentioned Christians, not Christ.
No historical record. A dozen gods with the same story, most predating the tip toeing water acrobat, a bible that states light was switched on the third day. Adam and Eve started humanity through incest, the earth was at the centre of the Universe. The Sun orbited earth. For fuck sake, how can anybody believe anything other than the truth. He was fashioned from other previous gods, who all had to be born of a virgin or they couldn’t be gods.
Don’t get me started on the shit about Moses, Noah and his floating restaurant, that dozy **** who lived in a whale for a week, zombies coming out of graves and cutting about looking for a good coffee, after he snuffed it. A virgin birth. Raising people from the dead. Dying and putting in an appearance so he didn’t miss out on an Easter egg. Floating up to heaven. Satan cutting about and god turning a bling eye. A talking snake, a burning bush, parting seas, god being an enthusiastic genocidal ****, killing babies for being born into the wrong family. And that’s just of the top of my highly intelligent, gloriously fabulously haired head.
It’s a sham.
But apart from Josephus which is scant at best
There is absolutely no corroboration to the anonymous written decades after gospels
Anywhere that Jesus was an actual real person let alone be a deity
Mate they are not independentIf people want to decide that 4 independent sources written within 100 years of something happening is not strong evidence then that’s fine, but if you apply that burden of proof to everything then you’re wiping out the majority of recorded history which seems like an odd stance to take and one that very clearly puts you at odds with the majority.
Luke and Matthew are almost certainly copied from mark as is john
Not sure which one without a bit of research but one corrects marks mistakes to make look better
Mate they are not independent
Luke and Matthew are almost certainly copied from mark as is john
Not sure which one without a bit of research but one corrects marks mistakes to make look better
I’m not talking about the gospel, which would be pretty obvious if you’d read literally any of the preceding comments in this thread.
Apologies I dip in and out of this thread periodically so forgive me for thinking 4 independent sources are the 4 gospelsI’m not talking about the gospel, which would be pretty obvious if you’d read literally any of the preceding comments in this thread.
What did you mean then?
Apologies I dip in and out of this thread periodically so forgive me for thinking 4 independent sources are the 4 gospels
What did you mean then?
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius.
The 4 of them together amount to more historical evidence than we have more most things going on in antiquity.
Add that to all the Christian writings and it becomes very hard for anyone to convincingly dispute the existence of a historical person without raising the bar of evidence so high that you wipe out thousands of years worth of history for which we only have a couple of surviving sources which is why this really isn’t a controversial topic.
Firstly and most importantly, he wasn't one of the 12 apostles, so he's a secondary source at best.
Secondly, his authorship of the epistles is under question, even Christian scholars by and large don't believe he wrote all of them.
Thirdly and probably least importantly, those writings weren't collated and published (heavily filtered, redacted and edited) until the 5th century AD.
He doesn't have to be a disciple to take his works as proof of the existence of Christ. He was a contemporary, with a distinct ideology that has played a role in shaping Christianity as we see today.
Some of the epistles are doubted, but majority are still attributed to him.
Of course, we are not going to find the original writing for most historical works. The earliest manuscripts of Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" are from 11th century. So why should this work get any more credibility than Paul's epistles ?
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
And don’t forget those names where attributed to anonymous authors. All contradicted each other. I don’t know about you, but that’s not a good sign.Mate they are not independent
Luke and Matthew are almost certainly copied from mark as is john
Not sure which one without a bit of research but one corrects marks mistakes to make look better
Each version of Jesus are totally different as wellAnd don’t forget those names where attributed to anonymous authors. All contradicted each other. I don’t know about you, but that’s not a good sign.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
According to Paul himself in the New Testament he never met the man.He doesn't have to be a disciple to take his works as proof of the existence of Christ. He was a contemporary, with a distinct ideology that has played a role in shaping Christianity as we see today.