Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

OP: citing the Bible agreeing with the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true is what we call Circular Logic. Why do you believe it? Because it's true! Why do you think it's true? Because I believe it! And so on, and so on.

That's an incorrect assesment. NT Biblical books cite each other before they became bound together and accepted as scripture. They are written by a number of different authors - at least 8, and as many as 11.

There is NOT, as apologists like to claim, a welter of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There just isn't. This was a period in history in which records WERE kept, and NOWHERE other than in the Bible is the Jesus story mentioned. Sorry. Yes, there is apparently a mention of a rabbi named Yeshua in the writings of Josephus, but a. the authenticity of this passage is far from established (some historians dismiss it as having been inserted into the text some centuries later by Christian propagandists ) and b. so what? That's like historians 2000 years from now reading articles about BRUCE Springsteen and concluding that since there really were people called Bruce, then Batman was a historical character.

Oh please. The life and death of Jesus is very well documented. Compare this to Pontius Pilate - we found nothing at all written about him outside of the Bible, and yet he was supposed to be an important governor at the time of Jesus? The "Pilate Stone" was excavated in 1961 and was the first piece of evidence ever found, outside of the Biblical texts, that he was a real person.

Here's a short list of facts that virtually all historians who study this area agree on: 1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist., 2. He had disciples, 3. He was crucified, 4. Some of his disciples were martyred. If you're seriously going to disagree with any one of those 4 basic points, then you are going to have to provide sources because you'd be well outside of the general consensus among scholars and historians.

So no, we DON'T all concur that there really was a Jesus - although there may well have been - nor do we concur that he claimed divinity - though again, he may well have done. We're not dismissing these propositions out of hand but if you're seeking to class them as FACTS from which you can extrapolate other facts, then no. Sorry.

Of course, this is probably futile since the probability is that like most theist OPs on this forum, you won't return to discuss the objections to your proposition.

Oh really? The fact that you failed to raise a valid objection in the first place, makes me all the more certain that you can not back up your claim that Jesus never existed, can you?

---

"Probably" won't cut it lad. His supposed ministry was witnessed by thousands. And yet nothing survived, not even official Roman records.

Until you have some actual evidence, saying "probably" doesn't mean a damn thing.

No official Roman records of Pontius Pilate survived either, a fact I mentioned above, what's the difference?

---

Jesus makes a number of commands, most notably, sell all you have and give to the poor. Yet most self described Christians ignore the many verses that command that and don't follow Jesus.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say this?

[Esquilax]

No official Roman records of Pontius Pilate survived either, a fact I mentioned above, what's the difference?

Pontius Pilate never claimed he was the son of god.

[Aractus]

Because it appears they failed to write their experiences down anywhere.

I'm going to call you "captn Assumption" since your opinion seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, "if I can't read it from another anonymous source then I assume that it could not have happened"?

---

Pontius Pilate never claimed he was the son of god.

But you didn't answer the question, why can't I read the official Roman records that record the activities of this governor??

[Esquilax]

But you didn't answer the question, why can't I read the official Roman records that record the activities of this governor??

That's a new question. The question I answered was what's the difference between writings on Pontius Pilate and Jesus.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 (44)

[Esquilax]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

I happen to agree but also not care, so just take what I'm about to say next as the words of a finicky bastard and not someone trying to start an argument, okay?

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

Tacitus was born after Jesus died. Just saying.

[Zen Badger]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 (44)

Even if this were true, so what?
Without the miracles and the resurrection, Jesus is just another itinerant Jewish preacher annoying the fuck out of people.
And if he's not the son of god then your religion is still a lie.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Tacitus was born after Jesus died. Just saying.

You're preaching to the choir (well, so to speak) I just thought I'd be nice to the believers

[xpastor]

I've just found this topic, and truly I do not have time to read all the posts to date. I've just looked at the first and last pages. I am responding to the OP. Apologies if I repeat any points made in pages 2 - 6.

There's a number of you here that consistently deny that Jesus was a real historical person, which is utterly ridiculous and to that I would encourage you to listen to Bart Ehrman on this one:

I'm quite familiar with many of Ehrman's books, and I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a real historical person as he contends. That means (as others have already pointed out) that there was a peripatetic Rabbi Yeshua in that era, who was probably crucified by the Romans. So what?

I doubt that you would agree with many of Ehrman's other positions.

He says that before the NT was written down, specifically the stories of Jesus, the stories were told and retold orally through many links in the transmission, and like the children's game of telephone what emerged at the end was very different from the beginning. In the same vein he points out that for the written accounts what we have are copies of copies of copies through many stages and with each scribe, wittingly or unwittingly, introducing changes. Ehrman moved from fundamentalism as a young man (Moody Bible College) to liberal Christianity and finally to agnosticism, so clearly his scholarship has not convinced him of Jesus' divinity. In one of Ehrman's books, Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet, he argues that Jesus believed the world would end within the generation of his contemporaries. See Matthew 16:28, for instance. "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." I think Ehrman is quite right on this point, and he further says that it is the majority opinion of serious NT scholars.

Now I'm going to assume that most of you are going to at least agree that Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God.

No, I don't agree with the second part. In the three synoptic gospels Jesus uses the title Son of Man (taken from the Book of Daniel) to refer to the apocalyptic figure who is supposed to bring in the end of history. He usually speaks of this Son of Man in the third person, so I am not even convinced that he identifies himself with the Son of Man. There are a few passages where that would appear to be the case, but they may well have resulted from scribal emendation. As for the other gospel of John it is virtually all fiction concocted at a distance of several decades.

This idea that resurrection is a legend is also debunked in this one single passage. It could not have developed long after Christ's life, what we have here is a very early testament to the Christian faith - and then later Josephus also records independently that it is what Christians believe.

I think you meant to say something like "the epistle to the Corinthians was written soon after Jesus' death [i.e., 2 or 3 decades] and that was too soon for a legend to have developed.

I grant you the time frame, but it just shows you don't know much about the development of legends. They can spring up immediately. There are lots of stories of miracles being recounted every day about our contemporaries. It's a thriving industry in Pentecostal circles.

My inbox is besieged with legends. For instance, Albert Einstein, a non-observant Jew, who specifically denied the existence of a personal God, is presented as a devout Christian. A pro-Christian, anti-immigrant (anti-muslim) rant is ascribed to Julia Gillard, until recently the prime minister of Australia, and by her own admission an atheist.

One of the most remarkable legends is that of the Angels of Mons. In 1914 a British writer published a fictional story of bowmen from the Battle of Agincourt coming to the aid of British troops in the first World War. To his credit the author, Arthur Machen, always acknowledged that the story was pure fiction, but within a few short months he could hardly convince anyone in Britain that it was not a true story. See the Wikipedia article.

I would concede that the three synoptic gospels preserve a good deal of the authentic teaching of Jesus: the parables, the moral teaching (Sermon on the Mount) and the apocalyptic prophecies which did not come true. However, in general the NT is unreliable as a source of history. It contains historical errors and self-contradictions as I pointed out in another thread.

Why on earth would you think the Bible gives you reliable history? Many of the miraculous stories told of Jesus were also told of Gautama Buddha and of Jesus' near-contemporary Apollonius of Tyana. Do you believe these other miracle stories?

[Minimalist]

Do you believe these other miracle stories?

I am going to guess "no," X-P.