Where is Jesus?

[tackattack]

---

Well firstly IrH9 is a Muslim, therefore I do presume he acknowledges Jesus' existence, it's a matter of tautology whether he's the son of God or simply a man. At the very basest he is presumed to be at least a man with insight into God's nature, from a theist standpoint. From the atheist standpoint you're talking about he is purely fictional, and I can understand that. That is the very reason why, if you are looking for Jesus, it's illogical that you don't at least start your search with theism, because some atheists don't even believe he existed. I have been to a Muslim country and can envision the other 2 scenarios quite easily. But I see no flaw in the logic that to find something you must start looking where that thing is, not where it isn't. If you disagree then please explain so I can understand your views better.

Atheists do not believe that Jesus did not exist. They accept evidence for or against something. Believing is accepting something as factual without evidence, which is irrational in itself.

It is irrational to ask people who believe in ghosts whether or not ghosts exist. At the very least it is redundant. The answer is yes by definition. Likewise if you ask a theist if Jesus/god exists, or existed, you are asking them a rhetorical question.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. There are plenty of historical records of how the emperor Constantine, followed by Augustine, and the other fathers of Christianity created and shaped Christianity as it largely exists today regardless of sect. Jerome created the Vulgate (the first bible). They set the time of Jesus 3 centuries before their time and the setting in a remote village of Palestine both in an effort to add mystery and create the false impression of veracity.

Information at the time was a privilege that few enjoyed and those contemporaries can be forgiven for believing the silly stories. Especially, when declaring oneself a non-believer meant a sure death sentence. Today on the other hand, information is the easiest thing to obtain. That is why religious groups spend so much money in misinformation in order to protect their investment. The opinions in this forum can be used as catalysts for research, but they are not on themselves nearly adequate to learn anything in depth.

Any person with an open mind and average intelligence can easily find out any factual information available. Anyone who starts with the premise that every thing he/she thinks he/she knows may be false will learn at an ever increasing rate. Anyone who starts researching with an assumption will have limited success in research. Believing that Jesus existed and then looking for evidence that it existed is a laughable research strategy in research circles. The question is who says that Jesus existed? Then ask is the name fitting to the setting? In this case it is not. What is the evidence? When you think you found the answer, then you need to ask, “what was my biggest mistake in my research? What have I overlooked?” and further investigate any thing that is remotely suspicious, unsound, or not plausible.

Theists fool themselves into the following logic: There is no strong evidence that Jesus did not exist. Therefore, he must have existed.

I hope this helps.

I did not say atheists don't believe Jesus existed, I thought you were speaking specifically of those that don't. There are some who do and some who don't, agreed. Believing is not accepting something as factual without evidence, belief is accepting something as true. It commonly is accepted that truth requires objective evidence therefore belief would have objective evidence supporting it. Faith is accepting something as true without objective evidence. Blind faith would then be accepting something as true despite of evidence or with zero evidence.

While I agree on your researching guidelines the rest of the post smacks of just as much bias as asking a theist if Jesus exists. Comments like "silly" , "of course", "fool" are not as unbiased as you're attempting to appear to be. Your generalizations of all theists also are a detriment to any objective thinking. I accept religious documents as indicative evidence, without a body or burial site or effigies to great men. I claim it's likely that a man named Jesus existed, if he did there are stories about his life. I hope this helps

Tackattack,

My statement that atheist do not “believe” Jesus existed, or not exist is because atheist by definition do not “believe”. If they are atheist they will simply accept or not accept the evidence.

On the other hand the above is the essence of a religious argument because religious arguments are purely philosophical. The religious arguments always evolve on the semantics because the arguments end when the substantive issues begin.

There is no historical evidence that the Jesus of the Christians existed. The name is not Hebrew, Greek, Palestinian, or Roman. It is a Spanish construct. The Spanish monarchs Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castilla took.

Jesus is a fairly common Spanish name. I have a cousin, and an old great friend with that name, but neither of them is Jewish. The name Jesus is as foreign to Hebrew as Francisco. From the onset, the story makes no sense. Then, there is the fact that no contemporary Hebrew scholar ever wrote about “Jesus” or any other man with some of the attributes that Christians attach to “him”. No Roman or Greek historian wrote one sentence about the alleged self proclaimed son of god.

The more recent the Christian “scholar”, the greater the “evidence” that Jesus “must have” existed at least as a man. It is much easier to reinvent the news that “took place” 2010 years ago. That said, the date of the alleged birth of the fictional Jesus must be wrong because Herod died in the year 2 B.C. He could not logically have ordered the Jewish babies killed when he was dead. There is another detail. The Hebrew scholars forgot to mention anywhere that their children were ordered dead by the Romans in year 1. Maybe they didn’t mind?

What do you think about the fact that Christianity was reported by Romans to exist in Greece decades before the alleged birth of Jesus and that the Greeks did not use the name Jesus, but Kristós? What do you make of the fact that Greeks not Jews were specifically addressed in the NT? What do you make of the fact that Messianic Jews were converted to Christianity by non-Jews and that no Christian Jews descend from the “original” Jesus character, or his alleged entourage?

There is the issue that the earliest Gospel was written in the 2nd century and that the Gospels contradict one another on their Jesus tales. Who said that if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it?

---

My previous post was semantic because I was pointing out your bias and faulty definitions. You addressed no specific points for me to rebut only made false sweeping generalizations. I've never ended arguments on substantive points and am not afraid to address anything directed at me.
I agree that atheism is a rejection of subjective evidence for God's existence and no objective evidence exists (to my knowledge) therefore they don't truly believe but withhold judgment. My point was that if object is subjective then the proofs should be subjective and therefore based on subjective evidence.

To address your actual points:
1-Christ did come from Kristos. Jesus is the latin form of the Greek Iesous, Which is from the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua. If you're really interested check out "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff." or "Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2."

2- Do I think Christianity knows the birth day of Christ? no.
3- Was Christianity an effective tool of repression, control, and dictatorial government, which they spread around the world with their conquests? Yes.
4- I am also aware of the contradictory natures of the 35+ writers of the Bible on witnessed or oral traditions and stories. I see more similarity there then there was in my last car accident report eye witness testimony.

You're more than welcome to cherry pick the differences and you can assume I'm glossing over discrepancies, but I believe there's at least some credence to some events in the Bible. There were greek and roman and jewish Scholars that spoke of Christianity. Getting into those will get Ledo and min all rialed up though and I really don't have loads of time. Suetonius spoke about Chrestus though. I'm on vacation in GA and will have much more time to devote to this on my return, but I'll continue as long as I have a free moment.

---

I claim it's likely that a man named Jesus existed, if he did there are stories about his life.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/labors.html

The Labors of Hercules

The goddess Hera, determined to make trouble for Hercules, made him lose his mind. In a confused and angry state, he killed his own wife and children.

When he awakened from his "temporary insanity," Hercules was shocked and upset by what he'd done. He prayed to the god Apollo for guidance, and the god's oracle told him he would have to serve Eurystheus, the king of Tiryns and Mycenae, for twelve years, in punishment for the murders.

As part of his sentence, Hercules had to perform twelve Labors, feats so difficult that they seemed impossible. Fortunately, Hercules had the help of Hermes and Athena, sympathetic deities who showed up when he really needed help. By the end of these Labors, Hercules was, without a doubt, Greece's greatest hero.

His struggles made Hercules the perfect embodiment of an idea the Greeks called pathos, the experience of virtuous struggle and suffering which would lead to fame and, in Hercules' case, immortality.

So, you accept the stories about "Hercules" too?

---

I posit that someone named hercules could have existed. I'm not well versed in archeology, mythology or their historicity to speak to it's credibility. I certainly don't deny that someone named hercules most likely existed. The sheer volume of people that have existed over time would probably prevent from ever saying almost any commonly used name has existed in some state. However their deeds and actions can only truly be "known" when someone invents the time machine.