Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Cato]

Since you don't have evidence... BULLSHIT!!!

Seriously man, think of what you just did there, get back to me if you can resolve that, mmm'kay?

If I am lacking evidence, why don't you provide it?

I think what we are now discussing is what each of us considers a compelling standard of evidence. Photographic technology didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed. There are also no first hand accounts of his ministry; not one.

I can quickly provide first hand testimonies and photographs of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and chupacabra. Based on your standard of evidence you must consider the above existent animal species or admit that your belief in the existence of Jesus is based on some non-evidential criteria.

[Jackalope]

We do? Then provide some contemporary accounts of his life and doings please.

We don't have contemporary accounts of Hannibal of Carthage either but there's reason to think he didn't exist. And other historical figures such as Julias Caesar have had supernatural events and powers grafted onto them. There was a Roman Emperor who was claimed to have restored the sight of a blind man by rubbing his spit into the mans eyes.

When people start attempting to influence legislation, school curriculum, etc in the name of Hannibal, Caesar or any other (psuedo-)historical figure, I'll care whether or not the historical accounts of their lives are wholly accurate.

Their relevance to my life is vanishingly close to zero. As Jesus fetishists don't enjoy that status, much to my chagrin, they don't get a pass.

---

Except Santa is never a prick.

That jolly fat fuck stiffed me on the minibike I asked for in 1978. I got socks and underwear instead.

Fuck Santa.

[Ryantology]

It doesn't matter whether Jesus really lived or not. He was not a god or the son of one. Since the mythology attached to him is a lie, whether or not he existed is ultimately irrelevant.

It doesn't even matter that his existence can't be disproven scientifically, because doing so would not change minds already so antithetical to science.

[Minimalist]

That jolly fat fuck stiffed me on the minibike I asked for in 1978. I got socks and underwear instead.

Er, C/D...that was mom and dad stiffing you. Not Santa.

You probably needed the socks and underwear anyway.

[Cato]

That jolly fat fuck stiffed me on the minibike I asked for in 1978. I got socks and underwear instead.

Fuck Santa.

Ha! At least I wasn't the only one stiffed in '78. In addition to the socks and unerwear I received a Lifesaver Book. Five rolls per side. It was gold...it lasted until the next Easter.

[Confused Ape]

Actually - the MYTH of the "jesus" is far more obvious to Jews because the stories about him show a very definite lack of understanding of the Jewish religion as well as the Jewish law at that time.

First - the bible goes out of its way to show that Joseph had NO marital relations with Mary until after the birth of the boy. Under jewish law - it would have been heresy to claim that the boy's father was "god" - and it would have required Mary to actually marry the real father of the boy. Of course - she would have been stoned to death for the heresy. AS a child conceived out of wedlock - the christ would not have been trained as a teacher of the religion - and would not have been given access to the temples.

Thanks for suggesting another line of argument. .

[catfish]

Since you don't have evidence... BULLSHIT!!!

Seriously man, think of what you just did there, get back to me if you can resolve that, mmm'kay?

If I am lacking evidence, why don't you provide it?

I think what we are now discussing is what each of us considers a compelling standard of evidence. Photographic technology didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed. There are also no first hand accounts of his ministry; not one.

I can quickly provide first hand testimonies and photographs of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and chupacabra. Based on your standard of evidence you must consider the above existent animal species or admit that your belief in the existence of Jesus is based on some non-evidential criteria.

Seriously? You base your assertion of bullshit on "no evidence". So I want to see your eveidence of no evidence, get it? (in case you STILL don't understand where your logic fails, no evidence does NOT = evidence, get it???)

Based on your faulty logic and response, since I don't have evidence, why don't YOU provide it for me? Holy fuck people, you do realise how stupidly hypocritical that is, don't you???

And, you have to research things for yourself. You will just dismiss whatever I provide anyway, like all good atheists do...
.

---

Actually - the MYTH of the "jesus" is far more obvious to Jews because the stories about him show a very definite lack of understanding of the Jewish religion as well as the Jewish law at that time.

First - the bible goes out of its way to show that Joseph had NO marital relations with Mary until after the birth of the boy. Under jewish law - it would have been heresy to claim that the boy's father was "god" - and it would have required Mary to actually marry the real father of the boy. Of course - she would have been stoned to death for the heresy. AS a child conceived out of wedlock - the christ would not have been trained as a teacher of the religion - and would not have been given access to the temples.

Thanks for suggesting another line of argument. .

It's always good to research the "opposition". Muslims bring up a few good points too, but they're under the impression that their holy book hasn't been corrupted too, so take it with a grain of salt.

I like teasing some Christians by saying: "If it wasn't for this whole Yeshua thing and my lack of Hebrew, I'd be Jewish"...

There are Messianic Jews btw...
.

[catfish]

When people start attempting to influence legislation, school curriculum, etc in the name of Hannibal, Caesar or any other (psuedo-)historical figure, I'll care whether or not the historical accounts of their lives are wholly accurate.

And yet here in the US, we let a population of 5-10% dictate our curriculum, where's the outrage of that?
.

[Confused Ape]

It's always good to research the "opposition".

The opposition here is looking at Jewish law from an historical perspective. Is the Christian concept of Jesus feasible when he's seen against the reality of Palestine at the time he's supposed to have lived?

There are Messianic Jews btw...

I found a website for them.

http://www.menorah.org/index.html

A Messianic Jewish resource ministry about Messiah Jesus (Yeshua), helping others to know Him, the Bible, Biblical Jewish roots of Christianity, Israel and God's plan of eternal redemption/salvation.

Traditional Judaism doesn't recognise Jesus as being the Messiah, though.

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page.

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

The idea of the Messianic Age seems to have inspired the idea of the Second Coming in Christianity.

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.

Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.

All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.

[Brian37]

Still, everyone likes to argue the history of religion. It is still all made up bullshit. There is no "savior" anything. Jews still claim that their "savior" hasn't come yet. Big deal, they stole their characters and motifs from prior pollytheism. Humans make up gods and that is all that is going on. Getting stuck on one tradition or on details is silly. It still amounts to defending a comic book fan club.