Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213]

So, you would accept a better explanation of why we have the Bible?

That the Romans learned that religion was a good way to exploit people.
The people who didn't believe convinced people to believe, and those believers convinced others?

That Rome kept perfecting religion until it got even Jews paying Roman tithes to blasphemous emperors with defiling coins.

How did it do it, by having the Jews savior arrive, name him Je-Zeus.

Now which is the better theory, a bunch of meaningless miracles with unprovable promises...
Or men creating this story for their own goals.

[Kapyong]

[Replying to Peds nurse]

I see.

It's OK for the hyperbelievers to lie about me.
It's OK for the hyperbelievers to abuse and ridicule me.
It's OK for the hyperbelievers to ignore the facts and keep on preaching.

But I cannot point out their emotional and dishonest behaviour ?

This site is becoming a sick joke - you allow endless preaching of beliefs, endless repetition of false information, endless posts preaching the same nonsense over and over.

At least there are a few intelligent posters here who consider the facts - Good Luck guys I think you've seen what the facts are now, so it should easy to handle the hyperbelievers.


Kapyong

[Willum]

[Replying to Kapyong]

Hey bud, don't be frustrated, you're fighting a 2000 year old tide. You've got to expect some inertia.

[Zzyzx]

.

This site is becoming a sick joke - you allow endless preaching of beliefs, endless repetition of false information, endless posts preaching the same nonsense over and over.

Moderator Final Warning

You have received multiple Moderator Comments and Warnings for violating Forum Rules. The above post is yet another, a blatant disregard for the rule prohibiting responses to Moderator Action in threads (only permissible in PM)

If you desire to self-destruct you on that path.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by tfvespasianus]

Carrier posits that his assessment of the evidence places the probability of the historicity Jesus at no greater 33%.

Curious, what other historical figures does he apply this theorem to? After all, how do we assess the results of this theorem?

Did Homer exist?

Did Shakespeare?

Hannibal?

Socrates?

Tarquin the Proud?

I trust computations when it is obvious that reasoning/common sense is not necessary. After all, if I applied my brother's statement, "I went to the hardware store and they did not have the bulbs we need", how would this theorem work?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by Tired of the Nonsense]


Since this OP is about "a" Jesus, and does not beg the question of "the miracle-man Jesus", I do not want to press your statement here:

That Jesus is a myth that was constructed over the centuries by Christians.

But perhaps you could start a new thread specifically touching on your position. After all, "over the centuries" passes up even the most liberal chronology. Most of attributions you mention are already held within the N.T.

How might we turn this assertion into a new thread?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 73 by liamconnor]

Here, to answer these questions, let's ask a few questions that will make it clear:
Were there records of them i their own time?
What dis each demonstrate or accomplish in history?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, if you look closely at the blog he admitted a 'technical' defeat. i.e. he was unable to rebut all the points made in the time allotted. Yes he also admitted disappointment. So?

So the good ole he didn't beat me, I beat myself routine, eh?

Your original point was that he 'got his ass handed to him' which is an opinion which you are welcome to, but hardly an objective claim. Both sides presented evidence and I personally prefer actual discussion of evidence as opposed to pointing to other scholars and just taking their word for it.

You are right, I was just voicing my opinion. However, it was an unbiased, INFORMED opinion. Hey, I am a huge William Lane Craig fan. He is my hero, actually. However, I have to admit, he lost the debate with Shelly Kagan on the subject of Morality.

It was tough to admit, but he definitely lost the debate. Contrary to what others say, in my opinion, there can be winners and losers in debates, and I have my own criteria as to how I judge winners and losers...and according to my own criteria, Dr. Craig lost that debate...and he lost BAD, in my opinion.

So, I can admit when my own hero gets spanked, and I can also admit when Dr. Craig is the one that DOES the spanking..and in the Carrier debate, I think Dr. Craig SPANKED him.

Well perhaps I took it wrong since you put it in italics as if to emphasize the word for some reason. If you simply meant it as a pure description rather than a thinly veiled insult then I accept your explanation and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

No prob. I put it in italics because I was typing it in the same manner that I would have verbally said the word... I just wanted to put a little more umph on the word, that's all.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I see.

It's OK for the hyperbelievers to lie about me.
It's OK for the hyperbelievers to abuse and ridicule me.
It's OK for the hyperbelievers to ignore the facts and keep on preaching.

But I cannot point out their emotional and dishonest behaviour ?

Pretty much, yeah. LOL.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to liamconnor]

As I stated earlier, Carrier’s approach is a Bayesian one. One can look up Bayes’ Theorem if they are unfamiliar. Basically, one has to form a model for prior probability and modify it based on an assessment of the probabilities of all available evidence. An estimate for prior probability is probably one of the most difficult steps and Carrier does spend a good deal of time on it. As I have no desire to be some sort of apologist for Carrier or his approach, I will leave it to other to re-hash his methodology if they feel so inclined (caution: there is math involved in all of this). In any case, something to be considered in all of this is the idea that there is a taxonomy of historical individuals. Carrier posits that there is a degree of correspondence between the biography we are given of Jesus with Rank-Raglan Hero type. Again, anyone is free to look this up, but I am neither defending the Bayesian approach nor commenting upon how Rank-Raglan figures into prior probability. However, as a total aside, if we can look into a category of Elizabethan playwrights with certain demographic details (i.e. many known Elizabethan playwrights do share some broad biographical details) we could then find examples of those known to be fabricated. Thus, we would have a prior probability and moving from there we introduce the variables of reliability of known evidence. Of course, I hope that we would be able to agree that at least some ancient heroes are unlikely to have a historical basis, but I am unaware of mythic Elizabethan playwrights.

Take care,
TFV