Jump to content

The Benefit Of An Historical Jesus


The Paineful Truth
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think you'll ever find false evidence for Jesus that predates 30 CE, because there is substantial evidence (albeit circumstantial) for an historical Jesus. Therefore, there wouldn't be anything written about him that would predate him. If there was, Christians would only claim that it was prophesy anyway.

 

The reason I believe and hope for more evidence for a historical Jesus, is because all such evidence will necessarily lead away from the mythical Jesus. The James bone box (ossuary) is a small example, because it emphasizes James who is the best connection there is to the historical Jesus.

 

But both the Christian church and the State of Israel want to keep such information suppressed. The Church for obvious reasons. Israel for two reason, one economic, one political. If there were to be found evidence for a historical Jesus which worked against the "Son-of-God" (such as the grave of Jesus with his bones in it or other evidence for his burial for longer than three days, for which there are some theories running around), Christian tourist dollars would suffer. Also, politically, Israel doesn't want to be put in the position of possessing proof or serious evidence that the Jesus of Christianity is a myth. They'd loose a lot of monetary and political support in the US, and it would only give the anti-Semites worldwide more ammunition. You think they're embattled now....

 

Even a relatively small piece of such evidence like the James' ossuary, brought down an official cover up to discredit it, even to the point of damaging the Israel Antiquities Authority's credibility.

 

The real poetic justice would be that Christians who are now at the head of the line to investigate it, thinking that to add evidence for an historical Jesus would certainly also bolster their theology, when only the opposite is the case. The best historical evidence they can possibly end up with would be information of no value either way.

 

It is the ultimate irony that Ex-Christianity's best ally in the fight against Christian dogma and BS is evidence for the historical Jesus--for all ex-Christians who are actually certain that Jesus is not divine that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



But there isn't any evidence at all for a historical Jebus of Nazareth. Absolutely nothing.

 

And the moment someone should find something, it will only benefit the fundy Xian cause. The moment they can find something real to latch on to, not something that they can only argue about from a book, they'll be all the more obnoxious.

 

I see what you're trying to get at, but simply disproving the myth known as Jebus of Nazareth is better for the anti-xian cause. And more historically accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're trying to get at, but simply disproving the myth known as Jebus of Nazareth is better for the anti-xian cause. And more historically accurate.

 

How do you go about disproving the myth otherwise? Evidence for or against an historical Jesus would be discounted by fundies in any case. In any case we would get to your point or to mine by hunting for the truth about the historical Jesus. If we go about it methodically and without a stated belief we're trying to prove, whatever result we find will be more credible with potential ex-christians.

 

And there is significant evidence for an historical Jesus. Paul writing about James, the head of the early Jerusalem Church AND the brother of Jesus, is very significant circumstantial evidence--especially since they had a contentious relationship. That (Jewish) church was founded on the followership of Jesus--whatever they may have believed about him (which almost certainly had no similarity to the dogmas of Christianity). The Jewish/Roman historian Josephus, does make references to Jesus besides the one which is generally regarded as inauthentic.

 

I find it ironic that you, as an atheist, who are presumably of the camp who reject considering the existence of God because to do so would be to try to prove a negative, would try to fight Christianity by trying to prove the negative proposition that Jesus didn't exist. If in fact Jesus didn't exist, looking for the historical Jesus will take you there with evidence in hand. If you aren't in said camp, please accept my apology in advance.

 

I have faith (haw!) that showing the historicity of Jesus either way, will disprove the myth of Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you'll ever find false evidence for Jesus that predates 30 CE, because there is substantial evidence (albeit circumstantial) for an historical Jesus. Therefore, there wouldn't be anything written about him that would predate him. If there was, Christians would only claim that it was prophesy anyway.

Whoever said I wanted "false" evidence? Don't go putting words in my mouth.

 

Second, "prophecy" has nothing at all to do with taking someone else's story and ripping it off to place your own little "saviour" figure at the center of it. Claiming prophecy doesn't make it prophecy so who cares if they say it? Scream it from the mountains for all I care it wouldn't change anything if it happened. They already tried the old "Satan knew the story and somehow time traveled and made demons look like our story so it looked like we took from them when they really took from us" dodge but no one with any brains is buying that.

 

The reason I believe and hope for more evidence for a historical Jesus, is because all such evidence will necessarily lead away from the mythical Jesus. The James bone box (ossuary) is a small example, because it emphasizes James who is the best connection there is to the historical Jesus.

The box is real. The inscription, at best, half real. If the story of how old James died is true, then that ain't his box. Jews have rules about how people who get stoned to death can be buried and, well, the likelihood of them allowing him to be buried in such a proper fashion is very low. Especially when the high priest went ahead and stoned him while the Romans were "out of the way" so to speak. Sure, it cost him his appointment as high priest sneaking in a murder like that but it must have been worth it. Now, do you think that if he was going to go through with all that, that he allowed for such a nice buriel for someone he so obviously hated or that he went ahead with the one for the low-lifes that get stoned? Do the math and you'll see if this was truly James then he went off and his bones were never seen again. But, hey, those boys over at BAR sure are pushing hard for this box so keep your fingers crossed.

 

But both the Christian church and the State of Israel want to keep such information suppressed. The Church for obvious reasons. Israel for two reason, one economic, one political. If there were to be found evidence for a historical Jesus which worked against the "Son-of-God" (such as the grave of Jesus with his bones in it or other evidence for his burial for longer than three days, for which there are some theories running around), Christian tourist dollars would suffer. Also, politically, Israel doesn't want to be put in the position of possessing proof or serious evidence that the Jesus of Christianity is a myth. They'd loose a lot of monetary and political support in the US, and it would only give the anti-Semites worldwide more ammunition. You think they're embattled now....

I'm sold. A good conspiracy never hurts to convert anyone. Did you know...now don't tell anyone...but there were guards at the tomb of jesus when angels appeared and a story went around that the followers of jesus took the body while the guards slept? Now, of course, the guards should have been killed for slacking off like this but they were protected by the leaders for keeping quiet (although killing them would have been easier and more logical).

 

Do I even want to bother discussing these theories? Not really. They're based in nothing but speculation. Do you have something more than "they're hiding the (circumstantial) evidence of a HJ?" Looking at people like Finkelstein I would say there are a number of people in Israel who would have no problem revealing any proof that did away with jesus once and for all (the AQFD...I think I got that right, would do this in a heartbeat).

 

Even a relatively small piece of such evidence like the James' ossuary, brought down an official cover up to discredit it, even to the point of damaging the Israel Antiquities Authority's credibility.

Do tell.

 

The real poetic justice would be that Christians who are now at the head of the line to investigate it, thinking that to add evidence for an historical Jesus would certainly also bolster their theology, when only the opposite is the case. The best historical evidence they can possibly end up with would be information of no value either way.

Considering that, based on all research done so far, the inscription is only half-legit, "James brother of Jesus" and the part stating the son of Joseph is the fraud I'm not sure what the great claim is? Jacob and Joseph were extremely common names. As I pointed out, IF the biblical James died via stoning, especially the way Josephus describes the likelihood that he got a proper burial are right around nil which means the box could belong to anyone. It cannot be connected to a HJ of the bible assuming one existed. How do you propose to connect those dots?

 

It is the ultimate irony that Ex-Christianity's best ally in the fight against Christian dogma and BS is evidence for the historical Jesus--for all ex-Christians who are actually certain that Jesus is not divine that is.

This is simply NOT a true statement.

 

If you PROVE that there was a HUMAN JESUS. One that lived beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do you PROVE he was NOT divine? By finding a grave with his bones? Fakes. Now what do you have? You'd have to get his families bones and DNA and show this was the bodies of all the family members BUT not some bodies put in a grave to fool people. How do you do that? You can't. So jesus is proven BUT his divinity lives on. It's called having your cake and eating it too.

 

You must SHOW that the STORY...ALL OF IT...is false or largely invented. That there was no jesus OR that the entire story of jesus was somehow made up...that there is ANOTHER story that can be PROVEN to be true. Since the latter is unlikely, since who would record the deeds of some handyman, you must try for the former. If there is another option I'm not seeing it.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is significant evidence for an historical Jesus. Paul writing about James, the head of the early Jerusalem Church AND the brother of Jesus,

 

Are you referring to Galatians 1:19?

 

What version of the bible do you have that says "James, the brother of Jesus" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you go about disproving the myth otherwise?

 

By disproving the alleged historical Jebus. My apologies if I made it seem otherwise.

 

Evidence for or against an historical Jesus would be discounted by fundies in any case.

 

Right - a fundy who believe Jebus exists would discount evidence that actually points to Jebus existing.

 

Do you know anything about Xian fundies? Were you ever one? I was one once, and even when I wasn't, any evidence for a historical Jebus only made me feel stronger in my belief. Anyone who would scoff at evidence for their god's existence is a loon.

 

In any case we would get to your point or to mine by hunting for the truth about the historical Jesus. If we go about it methodically and without a stated belief we're trying to prove, whatever result we find will be more credible with potential ex-christians.

 

With or without a stated belief, the evidence one uncovers would speak for itself.

 

And there is significant evidence for an historical Jesus. Paul writing about James, the head of the early Jerusalem Church AND the brother of Jesus, is very significant circumstantial evidence--especially since they had a contentious relationship. That (Jewish) church was founded on the followership of Jesus--whatever they may have believed about him (which almost certainly had no similarity to the dogmas of Christianity). The Jewish/Roman historian Josephus, does make references to Jesus besides the one which is generally regarded as inauthentic.

 

How is this "James" writing about Jebus count as evidence at all?? That's ludicrous. And how are Paul's writings also considered as proof? For someone like Jebus to have ever existed there ought to be more than just Babblical scribblings.

 

And writing about someone isn't proof. Otherwise, all Pagan gods are real because someone wrote about them. Finding supporting writings of contemporaries would be more helpful, and finding real objects Jebus would've left behind and being able to link them to Jebus beyond a shadow of a doubt would be even more effective.

 

Nothing you've spoken of counts as "evidence" in the slightest.

 

I find it ironic that you, as an atheist, who are presumably of the camp who reject considering the existence of God because to do so would be to try to prove a negative, would try to fight Christianity by trying to prove the negative proposition that Jesus didn't exist.

 

What's ironic about it? And when did I ever say that considering the existence of God is illogical? Don't put words in my mouth, either.

 

And the best way to prove Jebus isn't real is to prove he didn't exist on earth at all, as is claimed by the Babble.

 

How in the hell do you think that proving Jebus existed somehow is detrimental to Xianity?

 

If in fact Jesus didn't exist, looking for the historical Jesus will take you there with evidence in hand. If you aren't in said camp, please accept my apology in advance.

 

Hell, I don't even know what "camp" you're talking about. I'm in no "camp."

 

I have faith (haw!) that showing the historicity of Jesus either way, will disprove the myth of Jesus.

 

Which makes about as much sense as saying Jebus is real but being unable or unwilling to try and prove he did :crazy:

 

Seriously, in two posts you've managed to convince me you are almost as nutty as a fundy. I can't make heads or tails of your thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Painful Truth, it's really painful to see to what extent you will go to try to sell us your book. You could try places where Christians flock in large numbers. Surely there are some among them who have not yet thought critically about the faith. We confirmed exChristians on this site have done our research. Those of us who are interested in your book have probably bought it already. For the rest of us, maybe we have more urgent needs to attend to, such as dealing with fundy families who make it their business to run our lives.

 

I wrote quite a bit more--mostly tips on writing and getting established as an author, in case you're interested. I posted it in the Totally Off Topics section. Look for A Good Writing Course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was wrong of me to mention it. He wrote and printed a book, a job that was completed a few months ago. He tried selling it to people here. Haven't seen him in a while and his argument makes me think he may be setting up to try again to sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I don't even know what "camp" you're talking about. I'm in no "camp."

 

<snip>

 

Seriously, in two posts you've managed to convince me you are almost as nutty as a fundy. I can't make heads or tails of your thinking.

 

At least as much; the guy's a non-denom generic theist. He loves crowing about how obviously wrong Christianity is, but in practice seems separated from it only by the lesser degree of specificity he applies to his deity.

 

Personally, I'll take a doctrinal believer any day. At least their beliefs are grounded in a static document that can be studied and disputed on intellectual and academic grounds. Folks like Painful have nothing to back up their claims beyond the blind faith they're right and (usually) the ridiculous assertion that logic is somehow on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.