It's Quit amazing Even after all the millions of dollars spent on excavation and other stuff....

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman ’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman ’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

EyeHateGod:
Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman ’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman ’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

You are wrong on all fronts. Actually you OP are an even greater miracle and you know why? I will give you 2 reasons.

1. You believe that after 2000 yrs there is still no proof that jesus existed

2. You not only believe there is no proof you also do not believe he exists even wih proof


YET YOU SPEND YOUR ENERGY AND TIME AND DAYS TRYING TO RUN DOWN OR EXPOSE THAT WHICH TO YOU NEVER EXISTED.

Now that is some deep miracle.... OP I salute you for showing me that an unbeliever can actually believe in act and not just via words of confession.

Again I salute you!

4everGod:


Now that is some deep miracle.... OP I salute you for showing me that an unbeliever can actually believe in act and not just via words of confession.

Again I salute you!

Blue = black!

Nice Thread!
biggest scam ever
belief is a very strong thing just like superstitions
hard to let go of due to the imaginary comfort it gives
Biggest proof is that when you die, you'll find out lmao

hopefulLandlord:
Nice Thread!

biggest scam ever

belief is a very strong thing just like superstitions

hard to let go of due to the imaginary comfort it gives

Biggest proof is that when you die, you'll find out lmao

Not to mention what religious indoctrination does over generations. A seemingly endless cycle of indoctrinated parents indoctrinating their children & having them grow up in communities that would ostracize them for ever questioning the belief. So much social & psychological control is responsible for keeping religion alive.

Increased valuation of independent thought, combined with the highest amount of readily-available knowledge that humanity has ever had access to (mostly via Internet), have understandably been the most common contributing factors to the cycle being broken all over the world (and proportionally moreso in countries with more/longer access to information & valuation of free thought).

hopefulLandlord:
Nice Thread!

biggest scam ever

belief is a very strong thing just like superstitions

hard to let go of due to the imaginary comfort it gives

Biggest proof is that when you die, you'll find out lmao

This is y i say i want my freedom from religion! Using things they have no proof of to control my life i can't take it