There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[MaxVel]

I think my problem with recalling them is that they were both retarded and I tend to just try to forget about people like that instead of cataloging the fail.

Ummm... not even close.

Metacrock is very smart, maybe too smart for his own good (?), but he gets impatient and too emotionally invested in the discussion sometimes.

Yo lunch = out to lunch

[Jaecp]

If you say so,

My impression of him from what I saw of his posts wasn't as favorable as yours.

[robrecht]

I don't think Paul was a gnostic heretic. I think he was an Adoptionist heretic. ...

How would you interpret Phillipians 2,6-7ff? I think I recall a professor who offered an adoptionist interpretations of this hymn but will have to think about it some more to remember the details.

[GakuseiDon]

How would you interpret Phillipians 2,6-7ff? I think I recall a professor who offered an adoptionist interpretations of this hymn but will have to think about it some more to remember the details.

James Dunn sees it as an expression of "Adam Christology", as he explains in his book "Christology in the making".

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: <-- In contrast to Adam, who was made in the image of God, but "grasped at being God" by eating of the fruit
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: <-- Christ was subject to death, like other men.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. <-- In contrast to Adam, who didn't humble himself and who wasn't obedient.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him... <-- God exalts Christ for his obedience through the Resurrection

This complements Rom 5:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come... <-- Christ shares in the same image as Adam
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. <-- Adam disobedient, Christ obedient

and

Rom 1:3-4:

[Christ Jesus. . .] who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" <-- God exalts Christ for his obedience by resurrecting him, appointing him "Son of God"

[robrecht]

Very nice, thank you. I will look into this some more.

[Vansmack51]

No we have NOT “proved that Jesus and David are purely fictional characters”. When all the available information has been assembled it can be reasonably argued that there was probably an Israelite ruler called David, who made Jerusalem his capital sometime in the tenth century BCE. And there was probably a charismatic figure called Jesus c 30CE who attracted a following of faithful supporters. And, it is equally probable that both figures were subjected to considerable embellishment and mythologizing, but you do your cause no good by overstating what can be determined with certainty as proof.

What available information are you talking about? Hearsay accounts that are likely forgeries anyway? Neither a court of law or a modern historian will accept hearsay as evidence. That's a fact. There is not one shred of "available information" about Jesus or David. Hint the Bible is not "available information." ROFL!

If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?

This has to be one of the stupidest questions I have every seen. It proves Christians don't care about other people at all. I am a good person for my own selfish reasons. Being a good person gets me better friends and more of them. It makes my relatives love me more. It gains me respect in the business community. I could go on and on about why people should behave nicely. But it would all go right over the Christian's heads on this site. And the atheists already understand the value of being a good person. Christians never will.

[Vansmack51]

Oh, I almost forgot. No one has posted any evidence that the Apostle Paul actually existed. It's entertaining to know that they all looked desperately for some on the Internet but all came up empty. This is because the Apostle Paul never even existed. POOF.

[Rational Gaze]

[LC2040]

It's interesting how people define "evidence" in certain contexts. Asking if there is evidence that Jesus existed is indeed the same as asking the same about Origen or Plato. There are references to their existences but how do we really know if these references themselves were tampered with or fabricated? Personally, as someone raised as a devout Christian and then eventually becoming agnostic, I think the more critical question is not did Jesus exist, but was Jesus divine? I think, even without real evidence, that Jesus probably did exist simply because of his impact on humanity. It's pretty difficult for an imaginary entity to have such a lasting, profound effect on history. It is, however, overwhelmingly unlikely that he was anything other than another one of the multitude of apocalypticists preaching in the ancient world at that time. It's just that his particular message was so timely and appealing to the oppressed populace at that moment, that it is the one that "stuck". My loose analogy is that of the Beatles. They and their music just happened to come along at exactly the right time to launch them into phenomenon-status. If they had come around a couple of decades earlier or later, they might have been just another a "flash-in-the-pan" group, if that. It seems very rational that Jesus' success in convincing his followers of his authenticity as messiah (denied by his own people) was a product of populism. Everything else was perfectly timed after that, coinciding with the politics and superstition of a relatively primitive society. Now that we have developed the Scientific Method of study and refined what actual evidence consists of, the better question seems to be - why is Jesus considered divine 2000 years later, but none of his predecessors? Perhaps the topic for a different thread.

[Adrift]

It is, however, overwhelmingly unlikely that he was anything other than another one of the multitude of apocalypticists preaching in the ancient world at that time.

A multitude of apocalyptic preachers in the ANE? Just out of curiosity, can you present a list of this multitude?

It's just that his particular message was so timely and appealing to the oppressed populace at that moment, that it is the one that "stuck".

Jesus happened to be at the right place at the right time. I don't think many Christians will argue with that.

My loose analogy is that of the Beatles. They and their music just happened to come along at exactly the right time to launch them into phenomenon-status. If they had come around a couple of decades earlier or later, they might have been just another a "flash-in-the-pan" group, if that.

Kind of a oddball analogy, and not one I think I completely agree with, but I get your point.

It seems very rational that Jesus' success in convincing his followers of his authenticity as messiah (denied by his own people) was a product of populism.

A product of populism? Anyways, you'll find that there are a number of skeptical scholars who disagree that Jesus ever directly declared himself Messiah, never mind convinced his followers of it. Though I agree with you (and so too, it would seem, the majority of moderate and conservative scholars) that Jesus was able to convince his followers that he was the Messiah, and did so through signs and wonders (not least his apparent resurrection from the dead).

Now that we have developed the Scientific Method of study and refined what actual evidence consists of, the better question seems to be - why is Jesus considered divine 2000 years later, but none of his predecessors?

Though the scientific method is wonderful at helping us understand a great many things, it doesn't seem quite as robust in the softer sciences. In their book From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier write, "The difficulties of applying the so-called scientific method to historical research means that historians must often satisfy themselves with rules of logic that appear less watertight, making statements that seem probable, not "proved" in any "scientific" sense."

[seanD]

It's interesting how people define "evidence" in certain contexts. Asking if there is evidence that Jesus existed is indeed the same as asking the same about Origen or Plato. There are references to their existences but how do we really know if these references themselves were tampered with or fabricated? Personally, as someone raised as a devout Christian and then eventually becoming agnostic, I think the more critical question is not did Jesus exist, but was Jesus divine? I think, even without real evidence, that Jesus probably did exist simply because of his impact on humanity. It's pretty difficult for an imaginary entity to have such a lasting, profound effect on history. It is, however, overwhelmingly unlikely that he was anything other than another one of the multitude of apocalypticists preaching in the ancient world at that time. It's just that his particular message was so timely and appealing to the oppressed populace at that moment, that it is the one that "stuck". My loose analogy is that of the Beatles. They and their music just happened to come along at exactly the right time to launch them into phenomenon-status. If they had come around a couple of decades earlier or later, they might have been just another a "flash-in-the-pan" group, if that. It seems very rational that Jesus' success in convincing his followers of his authenticity as messiah (denied by his own people) was a product of populism. Everything else was perfectly timed after that, coinciding with the politics and superstition of a relatively primitive society. Now that we have developed the Scientific Method of study and refined what actual evidence consists of, the better question seems to be - why is Jesus considered divine 2000 years later, but none of his predecessors? Perhaps the topic for a different thread.

The problem with comparing the success of Judeo-Christianity (Christianity of pre-70 first century) and the success of the Beatles is that you're comparing things that are completely different (i.e. music and religion), in completely different eras (2,000 years apart), and in completely different cultures (the West and the Near East). But even if we were to make that comparison, the comparisons have no similarities. Popular bands typically flow out of popular musical genres that are already taking place. There is nothing about Christianity that reflects the popular genre of that era. Nothing. Also, the Beatles didn't have cultural factors against them that were repulsive. Just the opposite; they were young and good looking chaps that played a popular musical genre. Also, I don't think arguing Christianity's overall affect on history is a good argument because this could argued about any of the big three global religions. Instead, it's the specific literature that flowed within just a century that the movement sparked. IOW, you have an explosion of literature and source references between the the middle of the first century to about the middle of the second century that are based on the man with vastly different styles, viewpoints and beliefs that came out of nowhere in such a short amount of time. In that case, it's very unlikely you could have such a sudden effect without a cause.

[robrecht]

I don't understand why the comparison of the Beatles to Jesus is taken so seriously by some in this thread. It was just an off-hand remark that John Lennon repeated in an interview over 40 years ago.

[Raphael]

*sigh* Metacrock threatened legal action after someone on TWeb (can't remember who) found out that the Academic study his book was on was completely bogus. He claimed that it would hurt his book sales having a thread debunking his book.

Yo Lunch threatened legal action because something about us infringing on his rights to free speech by not allowing him to blaspheme and the Separation of Church and State.

Threats of legal action against TWeb will always result in a permaban.

And yes, they were both very dumb.

Now back to your regular scheduled viewing.

[Rational Gaze]

*sigh* Metacrock threatened legal action after someone on TWeb (can't remember who) found out that the Academic study his book was on was completely bogus. He claimed that it would hurt his book sales having a thread debunking his book.

Yo Lunch threatened legal action because something about us infringing on his rights to free speech by not allowing him to blaspheme and the Separation of Church and State.

Threats of legal action against TWeb will always result in a permaban.

And yes, they were both very dumb.

Now back to your regular scheduled viewing.

And thus the cycle of learning is complete.

[Hamster]

This has to be one of the stupidest questions I have every seen. It proves Christians don't care about other people at all. I am a good person for my own selfish reasons

all your "care" is entirely based on selfish reasons, being an evolved trait to aid survival. You shouldn't be proud of your caring any more than you should be proud of your fingernails or hair. No one would say you have a moral obligation to have hair so you certainly don't have a moral obligation to care if you don't want to.

. Being a good person gets me better friends and more of them. It makes my relatives love me more. It gains me respect in the business community.

'Be nice to people to get what you want' - as if doing bad things to people never benefited anyone.

I could go on and on about why people should behave nicely. But it would all go right over the Christian's heads on this site

Why be nice to people? So you can get things, duh!