Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MichaeltheGreat]

You are ridiculous, there is more reason to believe that Jesus Christ was a person then to believe that Cato the Elder was one (or Brutus).

You don't have to believe any of the super natural claims, but to think that he was made up in total and documented to have been believed to exist by enemies and followers alike within a few years of his death is frankly insane.

JM

I'll stick with the current DSM as to what's insane, not someone on the internet who uses a ****ing smurf as an avatar, thank you. And before you run your ass, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

As I said, "evidentiary." Not what anyone chooses to believe, actual tangible evidence. There are plenty of reasons for that, mostly being loss and destruction of archaeological evidence, or that some data is simply not susceptible to archaeological or records preservation.

It wasn't until 1961 that we had (and still have only one) piece of physical evidence that Pontius Pilatus existed and was the Prefect of Judea. The Roman sources on Pilatus are mininal, and the writings of Philo (who was about as objective as one could find in the era) and Josephus (a distinct propagandist for the Roman point of view) are more contemporaneous and less favorable than the gospel versions.

What we have is a few manuscripts started a few decades after the date generally given for the death of Jesus, written by individuals who are frankly, unknown. Yeah, I know, John, Paul, George and Ringo, except that the apostles didn't write the manuscripts. They were written one or two generations after the fact, which in the ancient world, leaves lots of room for spin and embellishment. Part of the reason why, a few centuries after the fact, religious authorities decided to pick and choose which of many writings they would accept and discard. Oh, with the occasional condemnations for heresy, so on and so forth.

So sorry, a bunch of cherry-picked writings started several decades after the fact doesn't provide any specific evidence. (Reading Comprehension 101: None of this says "Jesus didn't exist." "Jesus doesn't exist" is not equal to "There is no evidentiary basis for the existtence of Jesus." )

Was there someone who inspired a particularly successful messianic cult (as it was referred to by its detractors) among the Jews? Yes. Were there enemies of Jesus himself? No evidence. Were there enemies of a cult/sect/religion based upon the supposed teachings of one called Jesus? Certainly. Two different things.

Logically, there most likely was at least one individual, or maybe a principle charismatic individual and some lesser known ones who said or did things later attributed to Jesus, who formed the basis for the Jesus stories. One thing we know for certain, ancient middle eastern peoples were far more concerned with a good story and literal truth. Prodigal son? Good story with an object lesson. Literal truth? Not needed, because the story and the lesson was the goal.

Oh, but they were inspired by God.

[Aeson]

Studies show that the surest way to start out poor is to grow up in a broken home. So yeah. I'm an evil capitalist. I want people to get rich and well off and where they get there is by getting married and staying married.

Deaf Catholic heterosexuals on average make far less money than non-disabled atheist homosexuals. I guess we now know who should be raising the kids ...

[Jon Miller]

I'll stick with the current DSM as to what's insane, not someone on the internet who uses a ****ing smurf as an avatar, thank you. And before you run your ass, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

As I said, "evidentiary." Not what anyone chooses to believe, actual tangible evidence. There are plenty of reasons for that, mostly being loss and destruction of archaeological evidence, or that some data is simply not susceptible to archaeological or records preservation.

It wasn't until 1961 that we had (and still have only one) piece of physical evidence that Pontius Pilatus existed and was the Prefect of Judea. The Roman sources on Pilatus are mininal, and the writings of Philo (who was about as objective as one could find in the era) and Josephus (a distinct propagandist for the Roman point of view) are more contemporaneous and less favorable than the gospel versions.

What we have is a few manuscripts started a few decades after the date generally given for the death of Jesus, written by individuals who are frankly, unknown. Yeah, I know, John, Paul, George and Ringo, except that the apostles didn't write the manuscripts. They were written one or two generations after the fact, which in the ancient world, leaves lots of room for spin and embellishment. Part of the reason why, a few centuries after the fact, religious authorities decided to pick and choose which of many writings they would accept and discard. Oh, with the occasional condemnations for heresy, so on and so forth.

So sorry, a bunch of cherry-picked writings started several decades after the fact doesn't provide any specific evidence. (Reading Comprehension 101: None of this says "Jesus didn't exist." "Jesus doesn't exist" is not equal to "There is no evidentiary basis for the existtence of Jesus." )

Was there someone who inspired a particularly successful messianic cult (as it was referred to by its detractors) among the Jews? Yes. Were there enemies of Jesus himself? No evidence. Were there enemies of a cult/sect/religion based upon the supposed teachings of one called Jesus? Certainly. Two different things.

Logically, there most likely was at least one individual, or maybe a principle charismatic individual and some lesser known ones who said or did things later attributed to Jesus, who formed the basis for the Jesus stories. One thing we know for certain, ancient middle eastern peoples were far more concerned with a good story and literal truth. Prodigal son? Good story with an object lesson. Literal truth? Not needed, because the story and the lesson was the goal.

Oh, but they were inspired by God.

You can choose to ignore historians and various other scholars (the existence of a person called Jesus who was most likely baptized by John and put to death by the Romans) just like you can choose to ignore scientists and other scholars (climate change).

Both positions are pretty ridiculous.

You should at least read wikipedia (if you don't want to read something more substantial) before spouting nonsense.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I'll stick with the current DSM as to what's insane, not someone on the internet who uses a ****ing smurf as an avatar, thank you. And before you run your ass, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

As I said, "evidentiary." Not what anyone chooses to believe, actual tangible evidence. There are plenty of reasons for that, mostly being loss and destruction of archaeological evidence, or that some data is simply not susceptible to archaeological or records preservation.

It wasn't until 1961 that we had (and still have only one) piece of physical evidence that Pontius Pilatus existed and was the Prefect of Judea. The Roman sources on Pilatus are mininal, and the writings of Philo (who was about as objective as one could find in the era) and Josephus (a distinct propagandist for the Roman point of view) are more contemporaneous and less favorable than the gospel versions.

What we have is a few manuscripts started a few decades after the date generally given for the death of Jesus, written by individuals who are frankly, unknown. Yeah, I know, John, Paul, George and Ringo, except that the apostles didn't write the manuscripts. They were written one or two generations after the fact, which in the ancient world, leaves lots of room for spin and embellishment. Part of the reason why, a few centuries after the fact, religious authorities decided to pick and choose which of many writings they would accept and discard. Oh, with the occasional condemnations for heresy, so on and so forth.

So sorry, a bunch of cherry-picked writings started several decades after the fact doesn't provide any specific evidence. (Reading Comprehension 101: None of this says "Jesus didn't exist." "Jesus doesn't exist" is not equal to "There is no evidentiary basis for the existtence of Jesus." )

Was there someone who inspired a particularly successful messianic cult (as it was referred to by its detractors) among the Jews? Yes. Were there enemies of Jesus himself? No evidence. Were there enemies of a cult/sect/religion based upon the supposed teachings of one called Jesus? Certainly. Two different things.

Logically, there most likely was at least one individual, or maybe a principle charismatic individual and some lesser known ones who said or did things later attributed to Jesus, who formed the basis for the Jesus stories. One thing we know for certain, ancient middle eastern peoples were far more concerned with a good story and literal truth. Prodigal son? Good story with an object lesson. Literal truth? Not needed, because the story and the lesson was the goal.

Oh, but they were inspired by God.

You can choose to ignore historians and various other scholars (the existence of a person called Jesus who was most likely baptized by John and put to death by the Romans) just like you can choose to ignore scientists and other scholars (climate change).

Both positions are pretty ridiculous.

You should at least read wikipedia (if you don't want to read something more substantial) before spouting nonsense.

JM

[Sava]

You can choose to ignore historians and various other scholars (the existence of a person called Jesus who was most likely baptized by John and put to death by the Romans) just like you can choose to ignore scientists and other scholars (climate change).

Both positions are pretty ridiculous.

Wow. Would you react this way if someone suggested Julius Caesar might not have been a real person? I don't think it matters either way. It doesn't make much difference if a person believes X historical figure didn't really exist.

[Kidlicious]

I'll stick with the current DSM as to what's insane, not someone on the internet who uses a ****ing smurf as an avatar, thank you. And before you run your ass, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

As I said, "evidentiary." Not what anyone chooses to believe, actual tangible evidence. There are plenty of reasons for that, mostly being loss and destruction of archaeological evidence, or that some data is simply not susceptible to archaeological or records preservation.

It wasn't until 1961 that we had (and still have only one) piece of physical evidence that Pontius Pilatus existed and was the Prefect of Judea. The Roman sources on Pilatus are mininal, and the writings of Philo (who was about as objective as one could find in the era) and Josephus (a distinct propagandist for the Roman point of view) are more contemporaneous and less favorable than the gospel versions.

What we have is a few manuscripts started a few decades after the date generally given for the death of Jesus, written by individuals who are frankly, unknown. Yeah, I know, John, Paul, George and Ringo, except that the apostles didn't write the manuscripts. They were written one or two generations after the fact, which in the ancient world, leaves lots of room for spin and embellishment. Part of the reason why, a few centuries after the fact, religious authorities decided to pick and choose which of many writings they would accept and discard. Oh, with the occasional condemnations for heresy, so on and so forth.

So sorry, a bunch of cherry-picked writings started several decades after the fact doesn't provide any specific evidence. (Reading Comprehension 101: None of this says "Jesus didn't exist." "Jesus doesn't exist" is not equal to "There is no evidentiary basis for the existtence of Jesus." )

Was there someone who inspired a particularly successful messianic cult (as it was referred to by its detractors) among the Jews? Yes. Were there enemies of Jesus himself? No evidence. Were there enemies of a cult/sect/religion based upon the supposed teachings of one called Jesus? Certainly. Two different things.

Logically, there most likely was at least one individual, or maybe a principle charismatic individual and some lesser known ones who said or did things later attributed to Jesus, who formed the basis for the Jesus stories. One thing we know for certain, ancient middle eastern peoples were far more concerned with a good story and literal truth. Prodigal son? Good story with an object lesson. Literal truth? Not needed, because the story and the lesson was the goal.

Oh, but they were inspired by God.

Why would you believe that the Jews wouldn't be enemies of someone who claimed to be their messiah yet told them their beliefs were wrong?

[DaShi]

[Jon Miller]

Wow. Would you react this way if someone suggested Julius Caesar might not have been a real person? I don't think it matters either way. It doesn't make much difference if a person believes X historical figure didn't really exist.

Yes, I would.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Wow. Would you react this way if someone suggested Julius Caesar might not have been a real person? I don't think it matters either way. It doesn't make much difference if a person believes X historical figure didn't really exist.

I might also if someone said the moon landings were fake.

JM
(Note if it had been one of the other posters, I would have probably just ignored...)

[DaShi]

Oh, cause I don't think Socrates was a real person. I think Plato made him just in case someone started questioning his theories.

[Kidlicious]

There is good evidence of the existence of Jesus in Jewish literature as someone who taught against Jewish beliefs and traditions, and as an enemy of Judaism.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, cause I don't think Socrates was a real person. I think Plato made him just in case someone started questioning his theories.

We don't have writings about Socrates from his enemies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ah, I guess in the "smurfoverse" that "nonsense" is a kneejerk reaction to a statement that offends you.

The fact that a majority of scholars accept that someone most likely named Jesus existed and pissed off the Jews and likely the Romans too and got crucified (which is no big deal, the Romans crucified most non-Roman citizens who pissed them off adequately) does not provide evidence.

The simple inconvenient fact is that you have a bunch of indirect references, all incomplete, many contradictory, or even internally inconsistent (e.g. Suetonius). Some are clearly fabricated, some are second hand or third hand refernces to sources which are not extant. Josephus is pretty authoritative, but mentions Jesus in reference to the death of James, and in one other reference only. The historical consensus is that some guy named Jesus existed, and got crucified. The consensus is that there's a lot of references and some sort of following, and although they have varying degrees of reliability and differ in details, they pretty much all say this guy lived, pissed some people off, and got crucified, so let's consider that much to be credible enough that we can say it's pretty certain there was a guy named Jesus and he got crucified, but that's all we can say with anything approaching certainty or consensus.

That's a hell of lot less than BK and other Christian zealots quoting Jesus said this and Jesus did this as if it is all established fact.

The zealot's route is "there's a lot of references to this guy, so we will decide that we have a monopoly on truth of what this guy said or did, and we will then assign divine authority to our views, and to ourselves, by extension.

With science (and taking climate change as an example), the goal is to test and confirm, refine or rebut scientific theory. You don't have to "accept" anything - in fact, science is an invitation to expand the boundaries of knowledge by challenging and testing existing theory and using existing data in new ways, as well as developing your own data. Comparing science with theology is, to coin a word, "insane."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why would you believe that the Jews wouldn't be enemies of someone who claimed to be their messiah yet told them their beliefs were wrong?

Did he? Beyond "some guy named Jesus was born" and "some guy named Jesus pissed off the wrong people and got crucified" there's no agreement outside the gospels (and in some cases, inconsistenty or gaps between them) that Jesus said anything in particular. There's a fairly high degree of confidence that he cause some kind of ruckus at the temple, but then no consensus on when or how.

[Ben Kenobi]

The onus is on you to prove his existence... not the other way around.

Your words were, and I quote them - that the existence of Jesus Christ could be disproven.

Have at it Sava!