Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Wake up and stop looking like a dickhead.

That ship sailed a lonnnng time ago Min.

[Cyberman]

I still haven't had an answer to my question as to whether Deceived was genuinely requesting information by asking why we "believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person" or if he was trying to score some cheap point by it.

In fact, now I come to think of it, why was his question worded in such a way as to shift the burden of proof onto the "skeptics" (sic) instead of "why do you not believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?" It might seem just a minor alteration, merely relocating the word "not", but there is a major difference between the two question forms.

Well, Deceived?

[Undeceived]

I still haven't had an answer to my question as to whether Deceived was genuinely requesting information by asking why we "believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person" or if he was trying to score some cheap point by it.

Well, Deceived?

You have reasons. Give them. 'believe' is not a bait word. Everyone believes something, and those beliefs always have grounds. Behind those grounds are beliefs on how reliable the grounds are, on the importance of the truth, and even about the nobleness of choosing one belief over another.
If you feel willing, give reasons behind reasons. Like, if you say "Jesus cannot have done miracles" and therefore wasn't a real person, explain why the mere mention of miracles abolishes all points of truth. Address why you object to miracles to begin with. And clarify how the presence of unproven claims inside the box erases the possibility of proving the whole-box claim.

[Cato]

Everyone believes something, and those beliefs always have grounds. Behind those grounds are beliefs on how reliable the grounds are,

I think I'm getting dizzy.

[Cyberman]

I never claimed that I don't have beliefs. Accuse me again of something I never claimed and you are clearly behaving dishonestly. I asked whether you were genuinely requesting information about our opinions. It was a polite question, honestly asked. I have asked it more than once but at no time have I demanded an answer, as you have just done.

Neither have I ever claimed that Jesus never performed miracles, except inasmuch as the position of myself and others is that the character is and was never real and the story is a combination of history and mythology; in that respect, it is no different to Spiderman or Harry Potter. Thus the burden of proof regarding miracles is not mine.

I am also curious as to why you evaded the second part of my question; namely, the wording of "why do you not believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?" instead of your actual phrasing "why do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person?" The only reason I can see for such careful phraseology is, again, to shift the burden of proof.

As to the question itself, I and others have given you the reasons you requested. If your question was indeed a genuine and honest request for information, you have received your answer. That, as far as I am concerned, should be the end of that matter.

[Minimalist]

Bill Dever bases his arguments on Kathleen Kenyon's excavations in the 1950s.

And Kenyon's work at Jericho has been substantiated by radiocarbon testing and pottery as those fields have developed. Moreoever, there are excavations going on all over the region ( Israel is nuts for archaeology) and the evidence is that there was no blitzkrieg by any outside group. There are destruction layers spread over a 200 year period and attributable to Egyptians, the Sea Peoples, Aramaeans, and Phoenicians. Israel Finkelstein's theory of indigenous origins is generally accepted by modern archaeology ( to distinguish it from foolish bible thumpers who keep trying to breathe life back into their stupid fucking bible) that the groups which ultimately grew into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of "Israel" and "Judah" began in the Eastern Hill Country of Canaan, either as refugees from the collapsing city states on the coast or as nomads who settled down to farm or, most likely, both. In either case, the Conquest and the Exodus are horseshit and without them you may as well use the OT for toilet paper.

---

Glad you posted that video, Stim. Saved me the trouble.

Good work by Ken.

[Cyberman]

It's Ken's latest. I think he only uploaded it today (well, yesterday afternoon), so it seemed like perfect timing. Sadly, I suspect it will fall on stony ground for some of us.

[Minimalist]

More like stony heads.

[Cyberman]

We're back to the Olmec carvings again, aren't we?

[ThomM]

I am also curious as to why you evaded the second part of my question; namely, the wording of "why do you not believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?" instead of your actual phrasing "why do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person?" The only reason I can see for such careful phraseology is, again, to shift the burden of proof.

As to the question itself, I and others have given you the reasons you requested. If your question was indeed a genuine and honest request for information, you have received your answer. That, as far as I am concerned, should be the end of that matter.

----------
Indeed - when the people who claim that the christ was a real person present some type of testable and verifiable supporting proof of that outisde of the bible (WHich is not testable or verifiable anyway) - then they might have a valid question

However - when asked - you never get anything from THEM to support their statement - and that alone is enough to reject the christ.