(June 5, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Why are historians ignoring the huge elephant in the room?????

ART

There is no contemporary art of any jesus, and nearly every household had pottery. If Jesus was so great of a man with such miracles, he would have been as well known as he claims in Jerusalem. First century art would have been alive with such depictions of the "son of god." But oxen and carts seem to be the more popular theme..

If you were an artist and wanted to paint something that told a story and would sell to people who had "experienced" a miracle of meeting jesus, why would you paint anything else?

And so they did...if not on pottery at least on wall art.  The earliest known depiction of the godboy is from the Eastern town of Doura Europus. 

This c 240 AD, shows "jesus" (beardless and wearing a toga!) healing the paralytic.

This is massively missing context.

That Jesus, who is beardless actually based the image of Christ on pagan representations of Hermes.

They go on about a historical Jesus like it actually proves something. I personally don't believe in the historical Jesus, but I'm willing to concede one for the sake of argument, just like I'd be willing to concede a historical Harry Potter, because it proves nothing. It doesn't mean there were any miracles, it doesn't mean Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't lend any credibility to the "truth" of Christianity. All we've established is that someone lived, and the tall stories were based on him. So what?

(June 6, 2015 at 3:58 am)jesus_wept Wrote: They go on about a historical Jesus like it actually proves something. I personally don't believe in the historical Jesus, but I'm willing to concede one for the sake of argument, just like I'd be willing to concede a historical Harry Potter, because it proves nothing. It doesn't mean there were any miracles, it doesn't mean Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't lend any credibility to the "truth" of Christianity. All we've established is that someone lived, and the tall stories were based on him. So what?

That's the point I'm trying to get across, and what, disappointingly, so many Atheist bloggers do not seem to get. People bang on about ''No physical evidence for Jesus'' etc but fail to realize that all Jesus was, was a historical preacher who tried to reform the faith and got killed for it - there are others who claimed to be the messiah, yet are expected to have existed but there's less evidence for them than there is Jesus.

As a historical figure, there needn't even be much evidence for him to verify someone so insignificant.

I don't think what I said is the point you're trying to get across.

(June 6, 2015 at 4:06 am)jesus_wept Wrote: I don't think what I said is the point you're trying to get across.

I think it is. I made the point several times.

The Jesus that really existed doesn't prove Christianity; in fact, it does nothing for Christianity, because all it shows was that a poor Jew who preached died a disgraceful and embarrassing death.

There's a reason why there's a disconnect between the historical consensus that Jesus did exist and the consensus we see around Atheist blogs. Some people think saying ''There's no evidence!'' or writing a blog shows skepticism, but it really doesn't. As if saying ''There's no contemporary evidence for Jesus'' is some kind of revelation, without considering Historians also know there weren't contemporary references to:

Gamaliel

Honi the Circle Drawer

Hillel

Shammai

Hanina ben dosa

Confucius

Buddha

Hannibal

The ''Jesus was a myth'' is not something which is mainstream among Historians; and if bloggers have something which could truly disprove Jesus, feel free to provide - because for at-least half a decade, the same arguments have been recycled and they aren't convincing.

But I'm not saying it proves there was a poor Jew, who preached and died a horrible death either.

All the historical Jesus argument really shows is that some people like clutching at straws.

Always with the references to other historical people. It's irrelevant. Just because however many historians accepted similar or worse evidence for other people, it doesn't make the evidence any stronger here.

Can we really be sure of why he was executed, if that did indeed happen? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Sure, we can take an educated guess, but what kind of confidence level are we talking?

Can we even be fairly sure he isn't 2 or more historical figures intertwined? The seemingly dual nature he has would seriously suggest that to a bumrash like me.

(June 6, 2015 at 4:24 am)jesus_wept Wrote: But I'm not saying it proves there was a poor Jew, who preached and died a horrible death either.

All the historical Jesus argument really shows is that some people like clutching at straws.

You may not say that - but many ancient historians do; the Crucifixion of Christ most certainly happened - which gets us to deduce he was a trouble maker. That's about all we know:

- Religious preacher

- Died a horrible death

I've already laid out the historical evidence/references so it's really up to people whether they want to accept it or not. The historical argument isn't ''clutching at straws'' - Jesus myther arguments are not taken seriously within historical circles and those arguments put forward, half for decades, been debunked over and over again. I don't know what people expect constitutes as ''evidence'' when they ask what evidence exists for Jesus.

Wow, you've got it in for us huh? It seems you are the one with the emotional attachment to be honest. Why is it so upsetting if we aren't convinced by the evidence that you accept?

(June 6, 2015 at 4:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Always with the references to other historical people. It's irrelevant. Just because however many historians accepted similar or worse evidence for other people, it doesn't make the evidence any stronger here.

Can we really be sure of why he was executed, if that did indeed happen? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Sure, we can take an educated guess, but what kind of confidence level are we talking?

That evidence accepting was used an example to illustrate the ridiculously high standard Jesus is held to in contrast to other historical figures.

I mean let's be honest here, if Jesus wasn't famous, but we still had evidence for such a figure, I doubt many people would even deny his existence. But because Christianity is so controversial and famous, people are more compelled to deny Jesus's existence, for ideological reasons.

And I can't say I'm surprised, because despite Jesus ''myth'' arguments getting continuously debunked, they still persist.

And his execution is probably the best attested event - enough to land 2 historical references which is quite extraordinary for an obscure figure. As to why he was executed, it's more-so logical reasoning and looking at why people were executed.

Execution via cross was the worst possible punishment and you had to have been a threat to land such a death; thus, through logical reasoning, Jesus was vaguely some kind of threat.