(August 31, 2011 at 9:34 pm)nicholas5000 Wrote: Can you give me your best evidence that Jesus was not the son of God and died on the cross, or that he didn't exist? There's a theory that was in the movie ''Zeitgeist'' where the filmmakers claim that Jesus was a myth and never existed. They also claimed that all religion came from ancient astrology and sun worship.

This speak to the issue of logical fallacies which is what is at play with your question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyA8cIzosFU

Bottom line.
It is to the one who cries wolf to show the tracts or the shit.
Not to others to prove that the wolf was never there.

Regards
DL

(August 31, 2011 at 9:34 pm)nicholas5000 Wrote: Can you give me your best evidence that Jesus was not the son of God and died on the cross, or that he didn't exist? There's a theory that was in the movie ''Zeitgeist'' where the filmmakers claim that Jesus was a myth and never existed. They also claimed that all religion came from ancient astrology and sun worship.

I posted a thread here a few months back which dissects the fallacies in this argument.

Here's the highlights:
1) While there are things that can be disproven, the possible existence of a rabbi in Tiberius-era Judea who managed to piss off the authorities enough to make them press charges to have him executed is not one of them.
2) This line of questioning can be applied to any type of mythological creatures and the same result would be achieved.

For what it's worth, I do not believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God (it should be noted that at that point in time, "Son of God" was actually a colloquialism which applied to anybody sufficiently pious, and had no implications about actual paternity) because of the fact that the evidence for such a claim is simply not there. The evidence for the existence of Jesus himself is scant and there's virtually no contemporary documentation for his existence. It's plausible that a rabbi named Yeshua (what he would have been called) lived near Galilee and raised enough of a stink that the Roman Government had to crucify him, but the evidence for his miracles and resurrection outside of the Bible is non-existent. One would think that someone like Tacitus (or maybe some other writer) would have spent quite a bit of ink talking about the rumours of some guy in Judea who rose from the grave, but their silence just wouldn't make sense if it really happened.

(September 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(September 1, 2011 at 10:41 am)Thor Wrote: Okay, hotshot... give me your best evidence that I'm NOT sitting on a cloud right now drinking margaritas and having group sex with a bunch of angels.

The internet connection up there must be pretty poor, so I'd guess you aren't doing what you're saying whilst simultaneously typing on a forum.

Who says I'm typing? Up here my thoughts are instantly downloaded! Pretty cool! I can diddle an angel and while simultaneously posting on the internet!

Quote:It's plausible that a rabbi named Yeshua (what he would have been called) lived near Galilee and raised enough of a stink that the Roman Government had to crucify him, but the evidence for his miracles and resurrection outside of the Bible is non-existent.

But is it also plausible that Josephus, who mentions lots of trouble makers who were (rightfully in Josephus' view) killed by the Romans did not mention him, either?

Or that Philo, a contemporary of the so-called Jesus who wrote extensively about Jewish events in the early the 1st century AD did not mention him, either?

Or that Pliny the Elder who wrote Natural History which contains a lot of seemingly nutty folklore but no mention of a criminal coming back from the dead?

It is an argument from silence....but the silence is deafening.

(September 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:It's plausible that a rabbi named Yeshua (what he would have been called) lived near Galilee and raised enough of a stink that the Roman Government had to crucify him, but the evidence for his miracles and resurrection outside of the Bible is non-existent.

But is it also plausible that Josephus, who mentions lots of trouble makers who were (rightfully in Josephus' view) killed by the Romans did not mention him, either?

Or that Philo, a contemporary of the so-called Jesus who wrote extensively about Jewish events in the early the 1st century AD did not mention him, either?

Or that Pliny the Elder who wrote Natural History which contains a lot of seemingly nutty folklore but no mention of a criminal coming back from the dead?

It is an argument from silence....but the silence is deafening.

Well, an oversight on Philo and Josephus' parts could be plausible. Given the dearth of evidence, Jesus' non-existence is also plausible. This is why I used the term "plausible." It's possible that Jesus did or did not exist. Given that what we have of Rome's census records is nowhere near as exhaustive as current census records are, the world may never know.

Quote:Given that what we have of Rome's census records is nowhere near as exhaustive as current census records are, the world may never know.

But, at the time the story is set (sometime between 4 BC and 37 AD) Galilee was part of the independent kingdom of Herod Antipas and thus not subject to Roman taxation or the census.

This temporary political split ( it ended in 39 AD) seems to have eluded the authors of the "gospels." The most likely reason for this is that they were writing on the other side of the Great Revolt ( 66-70 AD) and the temporary political entities of the early first century were no longer remembered.

(September 1, 2011 at 3:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Given that what we have of Rome's census records is nowhere near as exhaustive as current census records are, the world may never know.

But, at the time the story is set (sometime between 4 BC and 37 AD) Galilee was part of the independent kingdom of Herod Antipas and thus not subject to Roman taxation or the census.

This temporary political split ( it ended in 39 AD) seems to have eluded the authors of the "gospels." The most likely reason for this is that they were writing on the other side of the Great Revolt ( 66-70 AD) and the temporary political entities of the early first century were no longer remembered.

So, in essence, I have just Harry Limed myself. The uncovering of the truth has just driven my point further. Given that there is no census to speak of, it's even less likely that Jesus' existence can be verified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz8R2IRc3MM

Explain the empty tomb and the eye-witness accounts it was empty atheists.

Say something for yourself! Have your own thoughts please.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_hi...n_of_Jesus



The top answer gives six good reasons for the resurrection of Jesus.