A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

[Losty]

---

If he accepts the TF as authentic then he is a schmuck.

I'm of the same school of thought that Min is here.

Ok, to be fair there is a tiny bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ....
But its such a scant amount: It's circumstantial at best and it would never hold up in any respectable court of law.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if you did get that time machine and you were able to go back to the year 30AD, you'd be damned disappointed at your godboy. At best you'd find a dirty hippy living off the stupidity of the goat herders who didn't even go by the name of Jesus and was more interested in getting fed for selling bull shit than he was in holding down an honest job.

So I guess the answer to your OP is: Can I give the time machine to a devout christard and send him back to the time of the silly fairy tale?

---

:o :o :o :o

Cinjin!?!? Is it really you? Welcome back

[Aoi Magi]

Watching the birth of any religion is pretty boring, and watching polytheistic religions is gonna be even more troublesome since their deities spawned across quite a large time gap. So if I were to have an actual time machine, I would prefer to go forward and witness the future instead. But if that is not allowed then I'd prefer to go watch Siddharta a.k.a Buddha, since I have serious doubts about him being a good martial artist.

[robvalue]

Oh yeah! I want to go back and witness how 3=1. Would be interested to see how that works. They weren't great at maths I suppose, maybe I could give them some worksheets.

[Homeless Nutter]

I'd go to New York in 1820's, -30's and -40's, to watch a known convict and "prophet" - Joseph Smith weasel his way into the pants of his followers' and friends' wives. That and the "reading golden tablets from a hat" thing could be funny for a bit... Before it becomes really, really sad...

[TheMessiah]

What we have here is a kind of fallacy involving overwhelming one's opponents in an argument with excessive verbiage and not bothering with clearly stating the relevant bits.

Apologies, but this Christ myth theory is simply laughable. It would not be taken seriously in any scholarly debate; I expect better citation of evidence from your post rather than analyzing the New Testament and Gospels and saying ''He didn't exist!'' --- clearly, the Biblical Jesus was mostly fictional in what he did, but you seem to either ignore or simply neglect to mention or evaluate the Historical evidence which points to the existence of the Historical Jesus Christ. It is because most legitimate respected scholars and historians agree, via a consensus based upon evidence that Jesus existed. This ''myth theory'' is simply idiotic Internet nonsense proposed by amateurish arguments which have been rejected by the vast majority of Historians. You could prop up the argument ''Think for yourself!'' but this is idiotic, the Historians are the ones who have cited and evaluated Historical evidence; thus we cite their work. You need to cite scholarly work to lend some credibility to your view. There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.

The mentions of Jesus outside Christian sources have been used for analysis of the existence of Jesus. Yet you falsely prop up ''There is no evidence!''. --- there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there are other Historical figures, who are suspectly accepted Twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus; a source who has been used for justification for the existence of other Historical figures, yet somehow Jesus does not get the same pass? And then again, once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.

Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93–94 AD cites two references to the biblical Jesus Christ. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is not authentic in its entirety, it is agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.

Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities, Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pilate in the Annals (AD 116), book 15. The Crucifixion most certainly occurred.

The negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians heavily suggests that the passage was very unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion.

I'd encourage anyone who wants to take a rational and unbiased look at who "Jesus" (ie Yeshua ben Yosef) was to begin with Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, then Paula Frederiksen's From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ and then Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew. All are top class academic studies by leading scholars and all happen to be by non-Christians. Read those books and you'll get a superb understanding of who Yeshua was and why both fundie Christians and the moronic "Jesus never existed" clowns can be given equal measures of scorn.

[Cinjin]

Read those books and you'll get a superb understanding of who Yeshua was and why both fundie Christians and the moronic "Jesus never existed" clowns can be given equal measures of scorn.

Key phrase here is "equal measures of scorn."

There are two schools of thought on the matter and you're equally, if not more biased than the other. You made a statement of fact and now there are those here who have scorned your view. There's nothing wrong with that ... that's what we do here, but it is you who first discounted the opinions of others and not the other way around by stating the existence of Jesus as a proven absolute. That's just blatant bias, as even I gave a little on the possibility of existence. There's a book supporting every theory and viewpoint on the planet. That doesn't mean that your particular book proves you correct. If you think it does than you should probably be a christian. They have a book that was allegedly written by the most powerful wizard in the universe. Is it absolute truth?

Pointing to others opinions who happen to share your own does not provide you with positive proof of your assertions. Everybody's gotta book bro.

[TheMessiah]

Read those books and you'll get a superb understanding of who Yeshua was and why both fundie Christians and the moronic "Jesus never existed" clowns can be given equal measures of scorn.

Key phrase here is "equal measures of scorn."

There are two schools of thought on the matter and you're equally, if not more biased than the other. You made a statement of fact and now there are those here who have scorned your view. There's nothing wrong with that ... that's what we do here, but it is you who first discounted the opinions of others and not the other way around by stating the existence of Jesus as a proven absolute. That's just blatant bias, as even I gave a little on the possibility of existence. There's a book supporting every theory and viewpoint on the planet. That doesn't mean that your particular book proves you correct. If you think it does than you should probably be a christian. They have a book that was allegedly written by the most powerful wizard in the universe. Is it absolute truth?

Pointing to others opinions who happen to share your own does not provide you with positive proof of your assertions. Everybody's gotta book bro.

To clarify, I did not make a ''statement of fact'' --- I specifically said ''Jesus most likely existed'' --- this is not an assertion, it was the probability I cited. I have no reason to be bias in this exchange. To be frank, I hate Christianity with a passion and consider myself mostly Anti-Theistic towards Christianity and Islam.

If I was bias, I would most certainly be bias towards the other way; from an Atheistic and Anti-Theistic standpoint, trying to disprove Jesus, which I have noticed has become common among Internet blogging. I did not 'discount' an other opinion, I simply made a comment and tried to not debate it because it would derail my thread; but now, I am willing to debate it on this thread.

When I cited my evidence, I did not point to The Bible. I outright discarded them; instead I cited non-Christian sources and even an anti-Christian Historian who acknowledged that Christ existed, as a man.

What I should add is that this is not an equal measure; it's not akin to ''there is 50/50 chance'' Jesus existed. The vast majority of Historians agree upon his historical existence, to ignore this, or to say it does not matter is silly. I'll debate the myth theory; my post has been outlined, but the myth theory is akin to citing outdated Scientific theories which do not hold up.

If I point to a number of Historians; who have been reliably analyzed, then this is evidence.

[Cinjin]

If I point to a number of Historians; who have been reliably analyzed, then this is evidence.

I agree. I made a comment to that effect, but it still remains evidence that does not offer incontrovertible proof of the man's existence.
From what I've read and seen, it seems very circumstantial.

And that was my only point here. You seem to be of the firm notion that we should all subscribe to your point of view.

[Dystopia]

I'm noticing some resemblance with another thread....

[TheMessiah]

I'm noticing some resemblance with another thread....

Yeah, a thread to which you made several false assertions and illustrated that you basically hated Conservatives and would discard them on that basis alone (it seems, there is another user on that thread who has also noticed this)...

I don't know if you've ever studied History, but I have. No Historical debate can be taken seriously if one neglects to refer to Historical works / Historians when forming an argument.

---

If I point to a number of Historians; who have been reliably analyzed, then this is evidence.

I agree. I made a comment to that effect, but it still remains evidence that does not offer incontrovertible proof of the man's existence.
From what I've read and seen, it seems very circumstantial.

And that was my only point here. You seem to be of the firm notion that we should all subscribe to your point of view.

The lack of contemporary testimony for Jesus is not a basis for an argument about his existence or non-existence because we don't have contemporary evidence for most ancient figures. Is the evidence for Jesus a disappointment once you contrast him to the magnitude of his influence on the world? yes].

But, most historical figures have about the same evidence; and mentions of them are only actually written/recorded a good 20-30 years after their death.