Clearly the historical Jesus leads to the biblical Jesus. I’d like to talk about why atheist don’t believe Jesus is the promised Messiah who was supposed to be God. God made man. Hope to have fun with the topic .
It’s not hard to prove that the vast majority of scholars which includes atheists believe in a historical Jesus. The scholars have evidence for Jesus existing and all that evidence points to people calling him the Messiah and tell us from the historical. If you that he was seen as God Almighty. From Pliny to Lucian to Tacitus to Celsius the list is long.
It’s not hard to prove that was an old testament in circulation at the time of Jesus and it clearly taught that the Messiah was coming and that Messiah would be God made man.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It’s clear that the vast majority of the scholars including atheist scholars believe that was a historical Jesus. Using the evidence to prove historical Jesus points to the same evidence we find in the Bible about Jesus being the promised Messiah and God Almighty and having done supernatural.
I'd say a historical Jesus is not proven but rather admitted because it's very plausible that a man existed whose story was later embelished and exaggerated.
The very words that are attributed to him show he should have returned within the life span of his contemporary followers*. And several other passages show the first Christians believed they would witness it, and that they were living the "last days" (even the "last hour"!) So Jesus failed to fulfill the one most important prophfecy of the New Testament.
* Passages where Jesus himself declares the DEADLINE of his return:
It's Biblical: Jesus won't come back.
All the Scriptures you’ve pointed to or taken out of context. For example the sign of the Son of Man coming his pictures at the end of the great tribulation. Hasn’t happened yet. Secondly the apostle standing there saw the return of that kingdom in acts chapter 2 in the spiritual born-again form. I don’t agree with what you said
@The yellow post
The scriptures aren't taken out of context by Ensjo. Ensjo quoted directly from the bible VERBATUM!
So basically you are saying that you disagree with the bible and want to interject YOUR OWN IDEA instead the literal text of the bible!
I have debunked the bible in three important places. Most importantly the story of Easter. The bible was written by men who obviously had an ax to grind. The church is the longest living and the most successful business in history.
Yes, and THAT is the problem! It hasn't happened yet, although it SHOULD HAVE. Jesus stated clearly that "ALL" those things that he predicted from verse 4 to 31 (INCLUDING the "great tribulation" and the second coming) should have happened before the end of his contemporary generation.
By the way, the "great tribulation" mentioned in these verses obviously refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.*, as the parallel passage in Luke represents it as a MILITARY action of GENTILES: Lk 21:20,24 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by ARMIES, you will know that its desolation is near. / [...] / [The people] will fall by the SWORD and will be taken as PRISIONERS to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the GENTILES until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
If someone is taking something out of context, it's you.
And here we have more disregard for context. Both in Mt 16 and Mt 24, when Jesus says that some of his present hearers will see the Son of Man coming, it's in a CONTEXT where he's talking about the ACTUAL SECOND COMING. Acts 2 describes "tongues of fire" as a manifestation of the "Holy Spirit". But the verses above say that they should SEE the SON OF MAN, COMING, "in his Father's glory with his angels", "on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory", to "reward" people according to their actions (the Judgment).
It has nothing to do with the Pentecost tale. The very "second coming" of Jesus should have happened within his contemporary followers' lifetime.
It's Biblical: Jesus won't come back.
There had been no printed books in the dark ages. Tomes had been maintained and copied (nay – edited) by monks. These tomes include all of your historians. In the case of Josephus, we have proof that the single paragraph that mentions jesus (small j intended) was added, out of style and out of context, by a zealous monk. It sheds a long shadow of doubt into the other sources.
The new testament (again, non-capital letters intended) stories have been completely debunked by me. See http://norealgod.com/2017/10/22/debunking-easter/
Do you understand that as an atheist, I do not accept the bible as true or even factual? This may come as a harsh blow to you, but if there really was this Jesus person, (IMO) at best he was a con man (like Elmer Gantry) who got whacked for pissing off some people in power.
So ... without using the bible, can you prove this guy existed and was who he says he is? First we have to prove he existed before we can speculate whether he grew wings.
Sure, there could have been a person called Jesus... I could grant that!
There is still massive holes in the rest of the fables.
There was no person named "Jesus" until around the year 1630 because that specific name didn't exist before then. On top of that the character's original name was supposed to have been "Immanuel" or "Emmanuel" = Matthew 1:23 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew1:23&version=CEB;TLB...
You mean, with the letter "J"? The name was "Yeshua" in Aramaic/Hebrew, adapted to "Iesous" in Greek and to "Iesus" in Latin. The name did exist, just not in its currently usual Western form.
In fact, we have "Matthew" distorting things here. He refers to the passage below and claims that Jesus fulfills it:
Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
But that prophecy couldn't be fulfilled in Jesus' time: That boy's birth should serve as a sign TO THE KING AHAZ, whom Isaiah is addressing at that moment. A sign that Assyrya would come nearly and defeat of the two neighboring kings that were attacking Judah under Ahaz's rule:
7:1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
Is 7:16,17 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. / The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah —he will bring the king of Assyria."
So, noone should be expected to be named "Emmanuel" after that specific point in time as a fulfillment of Isaiah's words.
There is little doubt that there is a historical Jesus, an apocalyptic jewish preacher from Galilee. However, the claim that he rose from the dead or was/is the son of a god is a theological claim, not a historical one. Also, if you accept the miracle claims then you would have to accept similar claims for which there is much better evidence. There are living people who will testify to seeing miracles being performed like the ones attributed to Jesus, yet nobody believes these people. But millions of people believe the miracles of Jesus based on 2,000 year old anonymous sources that conflict with one another. Belief in the miracles of Jesus is not rational.
i cant see any reason why believing that jesus is the promised Messiah. he never exist. or if he did, i wanna know where the hell did he went from his lost years and came back all powerful and all arrogant & bragged about his dad, the missing years of jesus is a big mystery. and Christianity is Ok with it
1) You misrepresented yourself on your profile which is a violation of the forum rules.
2) You are here to promote yourself which is also a violation.
3) You claim an assumption that jesus is accepted as a historical fact and you are dead wrong about that. You didn't cite any of the so-called experts/authorities/scholars that support your claim. And if you do cite said experts, I'll bet that they are dubious at best!
4) You make several statements in your OP and subsequent post that just are not true and certainly not proven.
"The historical Jesus leads to the biblical Jesus." first prove that there is a historical jesus, and then prove that said historical jesus is jesus of the bible.
"God made man." Prove that there is a god, and then prove that this god made man.
"It’s clear that the vast majority of the scholars including atheist scholars believe that was a historical Jesus." Prove it. Prove that a vast MAJORITY including Atheist scholars believe what you claim. You just made that shit up and are lying your ass off.
You are a fraud soon to be a troll on this forum. You don't want a discussion. You want to preach and proselytize. You are promoting some sort of self-blog or something and have no business here. Get lost asshole!
Well you’re completely wrong and I’m here to debate atheists.
@The yellow post
What I'm I wrong about.
You DID misrepresent yourself. In your profile, you claim that you are an atheist. So you lied! You aren't here to debate. Of all the time that I've been on this forum, there has been ONE and only ONE christian that actually wanted to discuss anything. Since you lied about yourself, I can only come to the conclusion that you are misrepresenting everything that you say. You didn't provide ANY proof whatsoever that any of your claims are true, so I must assume that they are not true and that you just made them up.
You display all the hallmarks of a TROLL.
Troll-troll-troll-troll-troll troll-troll troll troll
You intentionally misrepresent yourself in your profile (aka: LYING), yet you claim you want to have honest and respectable discussions? That is blatantly dishonest, and shows absolutely no respect. As such you deserve ZERO respect, and I am being totally honest about that.
What actual evidence do you have for the Historical Jesus. You have absolutely nothing that stands against critical inquiry.
1. There are no first century documents contemporary to the life of Jesus that support his existence.
2. There are at least 8 other first century prophets for which we do have evidence for. If anything the bible asserts about Jesus were true, someone would have written something about it. "Dead walking the streets. The world thrown into darkness. Palm Sunday, etc., etc., etc...
3. Paul knows nothing of a Jesus existing on earth. Nothing of the virgin birth. Nothing of the miracles. Nothing of the ministry.
Josephus: AD 116, A Christian insert into his writings. "Testimonium Flavianum" is a pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists
Tacitus, 107 CE, .the Tacitean passage next states that the fires in Rome were started by Christian agitators, followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Finally; Tacitis has no first hand knowledge and is either repeating what he has heard or fabricating the lot.
Pliny the Younger -110 CE, Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed.
So if you are going to cite an actual "Historical Jesus" you really have to come up with a bit of evidence for it. What else do you have?
click agree if you want to ban/kick out this troll (the yellow post)
"The historical Jesus leads to the biblical Jesus."
No it doesn't, at all, anymore than discovering Hercules was an historical figure would necessitate believing the superstitious claims assigned to his name.
"It’s not hard to prove that the vast majority of scholars which includes atheists believe in a historical Jesus."
Off you go then, as so far bald assertions is what we have been getting, and you don't seem to be any different so far..
"The scholars have evidence for Jesus existing and all that evidence points to people calling him the Messiah and tell us from the historical. "
Not one single person wrote one single word about him during his entire life. The claim "people" called him messiah would be meaningless even if it could be evidenced to have happened during his lifetime, which it absolutely cannot, since not one word was recorded by any contemporaries.
"From Pliny to Lucian to Tacitus to Celsius the list is long."
Celsius? I'm not familiar with this beyond the temperature scale. Do you mean Celsus? Well it's 4 people anyway so not a long list at all, and if you think third hand accounts written decades after the fact are compelling enough to believe in the supernatural then this is the crux of your misunderstanding of atheism and atheists.
"It’s not hard to prove that was an old testament in circulation at the time of Jesus and it clearly taught that the Messiah was coming and that Messiah would be God made man."
It's not hard to evidence that the legends of Hercules has some antiquity, evidencing the claims is a little more difficult, and you seem prepared to make leaps and assumptions here.
Currently reading a book, The Christ by John Remsburg, published in 1909 (and free to download from Gutenberg Project), that demolishes all the so called proofs of Jesus by those early writers you mentioned.
The majority of critics Remsburg quotes were his contemporaneous christian theists, theologians and clergy who rejected the dishonest additions to the writings of historians like Josephus as being such obvious and transparent frauds that only harmed their own attempts to prove the existence of Jesus. There is more historical cross references and writings of and by Apollonius, the other miracle worker who lived at the very time that Jesus was said to have lived. Apolonnius made the mistake of not dying young and so is little remembered.
Unless you have something new you are fighting a battle that was already fought and lost over a hundred years ago.
The "historical Jesus" may be no more true than the angel Jibreel who allegedly talked to Muhammad, or the angel Moroni who talked to Joseph Smith, or the alien Xenu in Scientology.
I think in reality, Jesus may have genuinely existed, but nothing can be known about him for certain due to the hagiographical nature of the gospels, which are all anonymous accounts.
We know about Socrates primarily through Plato and Xenophon, although Socrates certainly existed. However, it is possible that our understanding of the life of Socrates is heavily distorted by Plato's account.
In regards the alleged supernatural claims regarding Jesus: you cannot use alleged natural events as proof of the supernatural. If something can be observed, it is within the laws of nature by definition.
So here you are trying to convince us of the truth of your Jesus fable, and yet the very first thing you do on this forum is tell a lie. In your profile, you have listed "My View" as "Atheist".
From pedophile priests to money-grubbing televangelists, your whole religion is great stinking mound of dishonesty, exploitation, trickery, and cruelty. Why don't you take your deception elsewhere? People on this forum have brains.
@Algebe Re: Yellow Post
Here's irony for you...
Guys like "Ol' Yeller" get on here claiming to be "Christian" and spouting on and on about how we "deplorable devil-lovin' atheists" are soooo wrong for not believing in their "one true god" and that we have no morals. Yet they regularly lie about who/what they are and about what they "believe" in the process. And supposedly they do this in order to show us how amazingly wonderful and moral their religion and god are. And in doing so, they reinforce over and over just how much I am glad I am not a part of their demented little club.
Personally, if I were a "true Christian" and happened to see somebody like Yellow or AB blasting away with the crap they do, I would do my best to get them in check, because their behavior does not speak very highly of the religion(s) they represent.
I do not believe in a historical Jesus. Turning water into wine, being born of a virgin, raising the dead, are not possible. That dude did not exist. If there was a person or person that those myths were applied to, then they were not the person(s) mentioned in the bibull.
It is my guess that after realizing that he wasn't going to convert a bunch atheists with his BS attempt, the yellow post is gone.
A historical Jesus would NOT actually translate to the Biblical Jesus. The statement that it should presupposes that the Bible does not have error. A more logical approach would actually be to look at everything we have on the historical Jesus and combine them to know more about this man. I mean, the gospels, Paul's letters, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.
And we can actually come up with information about him.
1. He lived
2. He did some things that could not be explained
3. He claimed to be God/ son of God
4. He put on trial, was charged guilty and crucified
5. He was buried
gospels - stories, could be false
Paul's letters - never met jesus
Tacitus - second hand account that briefly mentions him one, lived way after jesus's apparent death
Josephus - second hand accounts, again, born after jesus was already apparently dead
And we can actually come up with information about him.
1. He lived - possibly
2. He did some things that could not be explained - with no actual evidence
3. He claimed to be God/ son of God - anyone can do that
4. He put on trial, was charged guilty and crucified - common place under the romans
5. He was buried - very common place
and do you see why athiests scoff at the notion and arguments put forward?
the best I have heard so far is the fine tuning argument but even that is woeful.
I was gonna add things like the tomb he was buried in was found empty but we can't get there until we've established these initial, minimal facts.
The next I would've added was, "After his death, his disciples claimed to have seen and interacted with a risen Jesus."
The next one would've been, "His followers died proclaiming this and would not recant."
So, you see where my line of reasoning was going?