THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!

[achilles12604]

I am so tired of hearing this statement asserted as fact dispite its obvious incorrectness.

So I am creating a thread about it.

Atheists please explain to me how you can continually claim there is no evidence when the theists here continually put forth the following:

1) The Gospels
2) Paul's letters
3) Jospehus
4) Letters of church Fathers
5) First cause
6) Moral argument
7) Nazarenes
8) Lime stone outside of Nazareth

And many others.

Perhaps we are tripping over the defintion of evidence.

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Please take special note of the last definition. Witnesses, records, documents, objects. We theists continually present these exact things and we are greeted with, "there is no evidence."



Ok well now I challange you to explain yourselves. Why do you say there is no evidence to evaluate when there obviously is?

[The Duke of Vandals]

I don't doubt that someone actually existed who matched up with many of Jesus' specifics. As for whether he was the son of God, born of a virgin, died and came back to life... that's another story.

Actually, it was multiple people. See above regarding Josephus and the multiple Jesuses he chronicled.

[Lotan]

Actually, it was multiple people.

Bunk.
None of the alleged "rabble rousing rabbis" (actually almost none of them were rabbis) are a close match for Jesus of Nazareth, and there's no evidence that the gospel stories are derived from them anyway. Jesus was a common name (1 out of 18) in 1st century Palestine. I'll start a new thread to demolish this fantasy when I get the time.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Ah, Lotan, my favorite AINO. How are things? Still trying to ice skate uphill?

Actually, it was multiple people.

Bunk.
None of the alleged "rabble rousing rabbis" (actually almost none of them were rabbis) are a close match for Jesus of Nazareth, and there's no evidence that the gospel stories are derived from them anyway.

lol... The favorite fallacy of the AINO seems to be the straw man. Please quote for me, specifically, where I stated "(insert another Jesus) is an identical match to the gospel Jesus".

You'll find no such statement.

Instead, you'll find my same consistant argument which you've yet to address anywhere. The multiple Jesuses we know of from Josephus set the stage for the gospel Jesus. Their deeds aren't carbon copies of the gospel godman, but nor do they need to be. Collevtively, the guys I listed...

Made trouble for the Romans.
Were executed on or around Passover eve.
Made trouble for the Jewish authority.
Preached about the end times.
Were flogged by Romans.
Was crucified by Romans.

Who we have no independent unbiased evidence of is the mythical non-magic godman who is a favorite of AINO's. This is the Jesus from the Jeffersonian bible who didn't do any miracles, yet lived the alleged life out of the gospels. He's based on Christian invention and the earlier Jesuses who set the stage for the flourishing Jesus cult in the seventh decade ce.

Jesus was a common name (1 out of 18) in 1st century Palestine. I'll start a new thread to demolish this fantasy when I get the time.

Promises, promises.

Why don't you try actually examining the evidence rather than greedily swallowing the scraps of propaganda christians feed you?

[Furrowed Brow]

I can accept the sentence that there are no good arguments for Christianity's validity. I can not accept the sentence that there is no evidence to argue over concerning Christianity's validity.

For Christianity to be valid two steps in the argument are needed. 1/ Jesus needs to have died on the cross and be resurrected, along with a whole bunch of metaphysics being in place. The metaphysics being soul, spirit, heaven, God, sin, miracles etc etc. 2/ That the available evidence supports all of 1.

I am not so equipped or inclined as others to debate scripture. However lets say that Jesus was indeed an historical character. That he was crucified, and that his tomb was found empty. Granting all that there is still no evidence for Christianity’s validity because none of that evidence is adequate for accepting the resurrection as supernatural, or the associated metaphysics of soul, spirit, heaven etc. To buy into all that requires a leap of logic, and thus a dollop of faith.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Dollup?


Good post, though. My only comment is the scriptures, themselves, are not proven. They require independent evidence which we simply do not have.

[Lotan]

lol... The favorite fallacy of the AINO seems to be the straw man. Please quote for me, specifically, where I stated "(insert another Jesus) is an identical match to the gospel Jesus".

You didn't. You said "Actually, it was multiple people." By "it" I'll assume that you mean the gospel Jesus. You're saying that the gospel stories are based on a composite of these other Jesuses, yes or no? They're not. They are a product of scriptural exegesis for the most part, combined with traditional material.

Collevtively, the guys I listed...

Made trouble for the Romans.
Were executed on or around Passover eve.
Made trouble for the Jewish authority.
Preached about the end times.
Were flogged by Romans.
Was crucified by Romans.

None of those attributes is remarkable for 1st century Palestine. There's nothing uncomon enough to even be considered coincidental. The Romans were oppressive and the oppressed were rebellious. Whoopie-doo! That's hardly compelling.

This is the Jesus from the Jeffersonian bible who didn't do any miracles, yet lived the alleged life out of the gospels.

Who ever said that? You're making your own strawman argument now.

He's based on Christian invention and the earlier Jesuses who set the stage for the flourishing Jesus cult in the seventh decade ce.

Unevidenced tripe.

Promises, promises.

I've already addressed the other Jesuses here. I just thought it might be fun to go into more detail on a separate thread and show how intellectually bankrupt this line of 'reasoning' actually is...

Lotan wrote:
Show us a passage from gMark that was "based heavily on the rabble rousing rabbis we know about from Josephus".

...nor have you shown us how the Christ-myth theory accounts for Mark 1:14-22.

You say "...what Mark and the other gospel myth makers report is impossible at face value." and sure, lots of it is impossible, but there is also a lot that is rather ordinary. For example Mark says that Jesus had a family. Nothing remarkable there, unless his intention was to create a "composite godman". Then inventing brothers and sisters doesn't make too much sense. Of course I don't take Mark's word for it, I look for things like independent attestations, and there are plenty of them. The Christ-myth theory, as you present it, does nothing to refute Mark's claim.
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
A religion that held Europe in an iron grip for centuries and has one of the most effective memes on the planet isn't a resounding success.

You said that Christianity was "an attempt to 're-judufy' Judea circa 70 ce". If that had really been its purpose, then by that standard, it was a failure. (Hint: I think it was that bit about the Jews killing Jesus, while making an excuse for Pilate, that resulted in the persecution of Jews for the next 2 millennia.)
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, Jesus ben Thebuth and Jesus ben Stada who we know about from Josephus bear absolutely no resemblence to the gospel Jesus...

That's promising...
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
...even though most of them came before 70ce (the time the first gospel was written)... and even though they collectively...

Oh yes, "collectively". Of course the larger your sample, the easier it is to find resemblences...
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
...wrote the Ecclesiasticus

No. Jesus ben Sirach wrote the Ecclesiasticus (in Greek), ca. 180-175 BCE. (Please try to keep your Jesuses straight.)
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
...agitated individuals in authority, prophecized about things to come (like the end of the world), tortured by Romans, came from Galilee, lead a peace party, and eventually crucified.

In 1st century Palestine that could have been anybody! Add to that the frequency of the name Yeshua (about 1 in 18) and it's not even a coincidence. Just to humor you, let's see what you've got (quotes are from your favorite website)...

Jesus ben Ananias - "Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
(Josephus, Wars 6:3)
Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult."

Prophesied, arrested, and flogged. Spooky!

Jesus ben Saphat - "In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee."

A Galilean freedom fighter. Just like Jesus wasn't.

Jesus ben Gamala - "During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds."

Jesus' Kingdom of God movement taught pacifism as an extension of the sixth commandment, but that's quite a stretch...

Jesus ben Thebuth - "A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus."

A spot-on match! Now I know why Mark is always going on about Jesus' booty! There is nothing about this guy that even remotely resembles the gospel Jesus. The last one is the funniest though...

Jesus ben Stada - "But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century.'

Is it a tenet of the Christ-myth theory that the author of the gospel of Mark was a prophet?
And where are the "Jesus cults" that you promised? You said there would be "Jesus cults"...

The Duke of Vandals wrote:
We know from the writings of Josephus there were 'Jesus cults'; followers of rabble rousing rabbis who happened to go by the name Yeshua (Jesus). While there is no one rabbi who EXACTLY mirrors Jesus, many of them do things very similar to Jesus... and had been doing them as early as 88 bce.

Face it. None of these guys were rabbis and none of them had cults. At least you're no longer arguing for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce." Or are you?

The Duke of Vandals wrote:
Also, we should fully expect to see references in Mark to these multiple Jesuses...

Why?
The Duke of Vandals wrote:
...even though the intention of gospels was to create a composite godman.

Do you think you'll ever have evidence for that?

One little thing that cracks me up is, if the evangelists simply made up the gospels from the assorted details of other lives why would they limit those only to people named Jesus?

Why don't you try actually examining the evidence rather than greedily swallowing the scraps of propaganda christians feed you?

A strawman/ad hominem blend. How creative.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Good post. You almost sound like you know what you're talking about.

You opened with some hair-splitting nonsense to try to save face and went on to dismiss evidnece. Par for the Christian course you're on.

• Duke: "These folks had things happen to them that mirror what happened to Jesus."
  Lotan: "So!?"

Stellar response. What's important is that you didn't actually refute any of the events I brought up. So we agree they happened to the other Jesuses. Marvelous.

You went on to scoff at the idea of the Jeffersonian bible... which is the stance you've held all along as an AINO. Your objection is just more evidence of your irrational contradictions of anything I say. Soon, I could post "down is the opposite of up" and you'd present some unsupported knee-jerk rejection... like this one:

Unevidenced tripe.

I've already addressed the other Jesuses here.

Really, you didn't.

Your entire objection was to go to each one and say, "This guy wasn't an exact carbon copy of duh gospel jesus so duh gospel jesus wasnt based on him!lol"

This is a little like stating because West Side Story doesn't specifically mention Montagues and Capulets there's no way it could be based on Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet.

The reason the early Christian fabricators used men named "Jesus" to base their godman on is these men existed (we know this from Josephus) and their deeds would have been somewhat known by Jews living in the area at the time. When you're creating a work of historical fiction, the closer you can get to being accurate the better. Josephus' work establishes the existence of Jewish "Jesus cults" as early as 88 bce. The Christians were hoping to cash in.

There's evidence of the other Jesuses from Josephus.

There isn't a scrap of valid evidence for the gospel Jesus, lotan. There never was. There never will be. He's very obviously aan invention.

[Goat]

There isn't a scrap of valid evidence for the gospel Jesus, lotan. There never was. There never will be. He's very obviously aan invention.

I am not going to say there 'never will be'. I won't say he is a total invention. I would say that much of the elements in the Gospels are inventions.

I can also say that there is no one in the current historical record we can point to that
we can say 'ah ha, this is the historical Jesus'. I dont think any one person would be close enough to be an insperation to have people agree on it.

That doesnt' mean that "Jesus" was a total invention. THere MIGHT have been someone that Paul specifically had in mind. However, I suspect that person bears no resemblance to the one the later gospel writers wrote about.

[wrekk]

I'll say this. Wouldn't a person (Jesus) of this magnitude and importance have way more documented "evidence" than what we're debating about?

Again, at what standards are theists holding their God too?

[Delusion78]

The gospels, Paul's letters and the letters of the Church Fathers were all unquestionably written by the hand of man. They can only be considered evidence if back up by independent means (ones without a vested interested in the propagation of the church).

I admittedly don't know what some of the other points refer to.

Moral arguments and first cause are only evidence if you presuppose God's existence.