BF2S Forums Jesus, Real Man or Myth?

Oh for fuck sake.

When the first option is the winning one, you know the place has hit rock bottom. Or below that, Hell. (Christianity pun!)

OrangeHound wrote:

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

... one would have to experience a bit of delusion to deny that Jesus existed in history.

I guess I am deluded. You are so much more knowledgeable than I.

Hey gee me too!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1317493

LOL - the entire list is evidence that no-one ever actually saw anyone...

1.) Hearasy after the fact... does not describe anyone; it only suggest 2nd hand knowledge of the existence of a cult; and is a potential forgery.
2.) Hearsay, after the fact, 2nd hand account, definite forgery (IMO).
3.) FALSE claim - the Talmud refers to a Jewish Name, not any specific Christ character.
4.) FASLE claim - Phlegon descirbes nothing, but a an astrological-event important to all Greek cults; an eclipse; no Jesus here.
5.) Same thing as 4 more or less.

(I have no reason or fact whatsoever to think Jesus ever existed).

I acknowledge that there is antagonism toward this subject, but it is not based upon rational evaluation applied by historians.  If one wishes to discount all historians of that period just because historians of that period disagree with one's contemporary opinion about a particular person then what grounds of debate exist?   What basis of historical evaluation are we left with?

Dismissing every record because one believes it to be "hearsay", "false claim", "forgery", etc. is just simply an amateur tactic.   If such opinion is introduced into historical records then nothing of history can be agreed upon, and all history devolves into pointless fiction.

Remember, I did not introduce a debate about the deity of Jesus ... just simply whether or not a particular historical figure existed.  All the criteria upon which historians validate the existence of an individual is satisfied by the historical records of the time period, and I'm not aware of any movement by historians which disagrees with the existence of a historical Jesus (even by the Christ opponents).

So, if anyone would like to sabotage the way that historians validate history ... then be prepared for all of history to be rewritten based upon contemporary agendas.

Well this deluded amateur does not resort to tactics (as you do).

You are beyond wrong. That is not at all how you arive at a historical account. Historical accounts are based upon corroboration - when facts & texts agree. And the historical documentation of today is not at all like the historical documentation of the past. You are operating under assumption and argumentation in the face of known facts.

But this argumentation for historicity (when evidence is missing) is a common apologetic tactic I am very familiar with (whether it be rationally deliberate or not).

(a.) Hearsay - is a definition - everyone knows it means - I did not witness that actually happening. Hearsay a hundred years later of a religious account does not equal a historical account.

(b.) After the fact - means exactly that. Well after it supposedly happened.

(c.) The examples you cited do not really describe a man. But the mere knowledge that a cult (or cult practices) existed. And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century  writings make no mention of this - so called  Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.

I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgey; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).

Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christainity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.

This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.

P.S. OrangeHound wrote: "I acknowledge that there is antagonism toward this subject..." - umm, not really, unless your feeling that there is. I really don't care. I just happened to be on-line; and someone created a topic [thread] and then I posted some information in it (as I have read a considerable amount of material on that subject).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 12:05:22)

One of my favourites is the Jesus-Mithras link......

Odd that the myths about a pagan demi-god worshipped by the Romans should so closely resemble the myths surrounding Christ.

the priests just saw a dream about Jesus, God and stuff so they wrote bibles to get people's attention

as a result it brought sabotage and human sacrifaces

OrangeHound wrote:

But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment.  Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

I tell you what let's not. Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.

You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 12:14:33)

Of course he existed. He was a political activist reformer of judaism who represented a peaceful movement to oust the Romans from Palestine. Nothing more, nothing less. His message was sound but he certainly wasn't supernatural. There is no such thing as God after all.

For a very interesting read try 'Jesus' by A.N. Wilson. He tries to piece together the historical truth about Jesus using what little contemporary evidence there is available including the Gnostic and Coptic gospels and the work of the historian Josephus who lived at the same time Jesus did.

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment.  Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

I tell you what let's not. Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.

You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.

I'm interested in them....


I know very little about the historicity of Jesus.

I thought it best to get all the proper facts here.



What I've always been interested in about early Christianity is the amount of pagan imagery invoved and the lack of resemblence to Judaism, which seems consistent with all the associated mythology being 'made up' by a pagan culture (the Romans).

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What I've always been interested in about early Christianity is the amount of pagan imagery invoved and the lack of resemblence to Judaism, which seems consistent with all the associated mythology being 'made up' by a pagan culture (the Romans).

It (Christianity) is consistent with Pagan, Talmudic and ancient Greek Man-God myths born through astrology/astronomy.

I know. I've done quite a lot of reading about all that stuff.

CameronPoe wrote:

Of course he existed. He was a political activist reformer of judaism who represented a peaceful movement to oust the Romans from Palestine. Nothing more, nothing less. His message was sound but he certainly wasn't supernatural. There is no such thing as God after all.

For a very interesting read try 'Jesus' by A.N. Wilson. He tries to piece together the historical truth about Jesus using what little contemporary evidence there is available including the Gnostic and Coptic gospels and the work of the historian Josephus who lived at the same time Jesus did.

Here is perfect example of Jesus being what ever you believe him to be; is it a surprise that CameronPoe believes of Jesus as being "a political activist."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 12:35:31)

topal63 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Of course he existed. He was a political activist reformer of judaism who represented a peaceful movement to oust the Romans from Palestine. Nothing more, nothing less. His message was sound but he certainly wasn't supernatural. There is no such thing as God after all.

For a very interesting read try 'Jesus' by A.N. Wilson. He tries to piece together the historical truth about Jesus using what little contemporary evidence there is available including the Gnostic and Coptic gospels and the work of the historian Josephus who lived at the same time Jesus did.

Here is perfect example of Jesus being what ever you believe him to be; is it a surprise that CameronPoe believes of Jesus as being "a political activist."

If Jesus did exist, which is the current opinion held by the vast majority of mainstream historians, he almost certainly was a political activist.

Early Christians are reported to have lived communally, with possesions shared by the collective. A very sociallist/communist start to a religion that soon became so entrenched in capitalist ideologies - very against the beliefs Jesus supposedly held. It is unlikely that the religious teachings of Jesus were very specific, otherwise there would have been little room for alteration by the Romans - and there was alteration, a lot of it.

There is no smoke without fire. A religion that deludes billions of people today was not founded on something completely and utterly baseless. It's like how dictators come to have their minions idolise them as Gods. A few generations after the dictator is dead people begin to actually believe he was a God ... and then several centuries down the line, with plenty of exaggeration and bullshit along the way, the 'religion' spreads like wildfire.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus?  Or the Easter Bunny?

Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.

If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus?  Or the Easter Bunny?

Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.

If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.

ok, lets see some proof of that then?