Is Jesus the son of God?

[Free]

When I give a shit for your opinion I'll let you know. Meanwhile, unless you can produce evidence that your godboy existed and did all the magic tricks claimed for him you are just one more deluded fool who believes everything he reads in a silly old book.


P.S. - before you waste your time, your bible is not "evidence." Your bible is the claim.

Sorry, but when you said that Jesus was mythological, you made a statement of fact with the intent of professing it to be a truth.

That is a positive claim.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove your claim.

[Minimalist]

There is no tangible evidence whatsoever that you boy ever walked the face of the earth. Nothing but the pious prattle of later believers and that is fucking worthless. Years of study have convinced me that your myths are no more real than those of ancient Egypt.

I would give you a reading list but my sense is that you are too committed to your bullshit to bother learning.

Thus my position is that there is no evidence for any of the gods invented by the human imagination. If you have evidence, now is the time.

[Free]

There is no tangible evidence whatsoever that you boy ever walked the face of the earth. Nothing but the pious prattle of later believers and that is fucking worthless. Years of study have convinced me that your myths are no more real than those of ancient Egypt.

I would give you a reading list but my sense is that you are too committed to your bullshit to bother learning.

Thus my position is that there is no evidence for any of the gods invented by the human imagination. If you have evidence, now is the time.

Nothing you've said here demonstrates any evidence to support a purely mythological Jesus.

Now before you get the wrong impression, I do concede that much about the man in the Gospels is an embellishment of an actual historical figure.

But since you are claiming that he is purely mythological, you will need to provide some kind of evidence to support that position. Perhaps you can find some ancient text in which some other historical figure points to Jesus as being mythological?

Something like that would be interesting.

[Minimalist]

First century Greco-Roman and Jewish texts never heard of him. In fact, the lack of such texts was such an embarrassment to later xtians that they began forging some.

Your boy is a cipher to history. Like all fictional characters he exists only within the pages of a book.

[Free]

First century Greco-Roman and Jewish texts never heard of him. In fact, the lack of such texts was such an embarrassment to later xtians that they began forging some.

Aside from this being a very bad argument from silence, I don't see any truth in it.

Josephus from AD 93 has two entries, one of which has likely been altered by a Christian scribe (but never proven) and the other indisputable.

Before the bible became an actual book, you have all the letters of Paul from the early to mid 1st century. He was a Jew.

These are just a couple examples that dispute that claim of yours. There are a few more.

[Jenny A]

Somewhere between two and three for me. There probably was a prophet named Joshua (Jesus in Hebrew) preaching around Jerusalem and he may even have been crucified, but he probably wasn't the only source of the Christ legend. He certainly wasn't the only messiah with followers in the area during the period. I think Christianity began as a secret knowledge cult based upon Jesus and others. There are a fair number of similarities with other secret knowledge cults and there are leftovers of that beginning in the Gospels.

The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He said to them in reply, “Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 12 To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’

Mathew 13:10-13 NRSV

[Minimalist]

Josephus from AD 93 has two entries, one of which has likely been altered by a Christian scribe (but never proven) and the other indisputable.

Before the bible became an actual book, you have all the letters of Paul from the early to mid 1st century. He was a Jew.

These are just a couple examples that dispute that claim of yours. There are a few more.

It is certainly disputable and all the jesus freak wishful thinking in the world will not change that. There is no indication that Josephus wrote any part of the Testimonium Flavianum nor that it existed in any form prior to Eusebius suddenly trotting it out in the 4th century...which is exactly what I spoke of when I spoke of xtian forgery. The short christ reference is probably a more innocent interpolation.

"Paul" was unknown as late as the writings of Justin c 160 AD.

Before I waste more of my time on you, use the search feature newbie and find out how many times this bullshit of yours has been dismissed.

Don't bother with Pliny and Tacitus and Suetonius and Mara Bar Serapion and Lucian of Samosata or Celsus. We've all been down that road ad nauseam. It never gets any better and you people all have the same sorry act.

[Cyberman]

Josephus from AD 93 has two entries, one of which has likely been altered by a Christian scribe (but never proven) and the other indisputable.

Josephus...

Before the bible became an actual book, you have all the letters of Paul from the early to mid 1st century. He was a Jew.

And never claimed to have met a living flesh and blood Jesus.

These are just a couple examples that dispute that claim of yours. There are a few more.

Try and find one we've never heard of before.

[Free]

There is no indication that Josephus wrote any part of the Testimonium Flavianum nor that it existed in any form prior to Eusebius suddenly trotting it out in the 4th century...which is exactly what I spoke of when I spoke of xtian forgery. The short christ reference is probably a more innocent interpolation.

This is not evidence.

1. You are attempting a persuasive argument, which amounts to nothing but yet another argument from silence.

2. You are also using speculation which is impoverished for evidence for support. For example, can you provide any evidence for Eusebius creating a forgery, and can you provide any evidence that the short reference to Christ is an interpolation?

"Paul" was unknown as late as the writings of Justin c 160 AD.

Not true:

Clement of Alexandria, The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 5 (AD 94,95)

"Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. ...By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and West, we won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, Chapter 4 (August 23, 97 AD)

"I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."

Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 3

"For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truly carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin."

I think that throws your information regarding Paul into serious dispute?

Before I waste more of my time on you, use the search feature newbie and find out how many times this bullshit of yours has been dismissed.

My position on all this has never been dismissed anywhere, at any time, by anyone.

And on the contrary, I think I just dismissed your arguments right here, so you will not require to search anywhere else for answers. I gave you the answers.

Don't bother with Pliny and Tacitus and Suetonius and Mara Bar Serapion and Lucian of Samosata or Celsus. We've all been down that road ad nauseam. It never gets any better and you people all have the same sorry act.

I do not need them.

Your arguments here are not actually arguments, and as demonstrated, not true.

---

Josephus from AD 93 has two entries, one of which has likely been altered by a Christian scribe (but never proven) and the other indisputable.

Josephus...

Face palming does absolutely nothing to dismiss it as evidence. You can't just hand wave this stuff away. That simply doesn't work.

Before the bible became an actual book, you have all the letters of Paul from the early to mid 1st century. He was a Jew.

And never claimed to have met a living flesh and blood Jesus.

That says nothing to the point of Paul's letters being 1st century texts. It's completely irrelevant.

These are just a couple examples that dispute that claim of yours. There are a few more.

Try and find one we've never heard of before.

We'll get around to that.

[Minimalist]

Search feature, son.

Use it. I'm tired of schooling every two-bit jesus freak who comes along with the same old pile of dung. It is all here. Find it.

I'm not your fucking secretary.