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 liamconnor]

Well, so I showed you that the Greeks and Romans worshiped where Jesus taught, so Jesus knew very well that Caesar was a God. That was the wikilink and reason for the insurrection.

And of course the coins -

Proclaiming that Tiberius was the son of divine Augustus.

Proclaiming a divine Augustus.

And of course we have the Bible saying render to Caesar...

So, that's all that it required to disprove Jesus was the savior, or anything other than a Roman construct to get people to obey Rome and pay taxes.

Views of others?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 99 by Willum]

So, that's all that it required to disprove Jesus was the savior, or anything other than a Roman construct to get people to obey Rome and pay taxes.

Views of others?

The only thing wrong with that theory is that we don't have proof.
It's an interesting theory that fits with some cherry picked facts in the Bible.. but the apologist can too easily cherry pick his own cherries and then make a counter argument.

One theory that I have is that the Romans didn't created the Jesus myth but used it for their own purposes. Making Christianity the official Roman religion certainly helped the popularity of it. "Believe or Die" is quite the incentive.

I think that ISIS uses that wonderful tactic with less reliable results?
( could it be the size of their army? )

[Willum]

[Replying to post 100 by Blastcat]

What other sections of the NT should I be considering to avoid cherry-picking?
I don't know what YOU mean by no proof.
Coins, Jesus, Bible, cleanliness. What other bits are required for proof?

I think perhaps the hats are on the wrong heads. The NT is essentially propaganda (a story propagated by an organization) without proof.

Coins, Rome, etc., are observables...

So riddle me my disconnect.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 101 by Willum]

[center]
A possibility is not the same as a necessity.[/center]

What other sections of the NT should I be considering to avoid cherry-picking?

I can't answer you.. but do you imagine that some clever apologist couldn't come up with some?

I don't know what YOU mean by no proof.

I'm trying to make a distinction between evidence and proof. Proof is an overwhelming evidence that convinces. Plain old ordinary evidence isn't necessarily convincing. You have evidence. I don't think you have the kind that overwhelmingly convinces.

You are making a leap of logic that I cannot follow.

Coins, Jesus, Bible, cleanliness. What other bits are required for proof?

I would want some direct evidence OF a conspiracy.. like a document.. such as the "Wedge" document that sank Intelligent Design as science.

I'm trying to learn how to be a good skeptic.

So, I require good evidence before I believe a plausible theory is TRUE.
You have some evidence, yes.

But does your theory explore all the other possible theories and can rule them out as viable ones?

Let's say that your theory is viable... for the sake of the argument.
Is it true?

Do coins, Jesus, Bible, and cleanliness necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity is a Roman conspiracy?

I don't see the connection yet between your facts and any certainty about a conspiracy the way you describe it. ( and for the record, I don't really have an opinion about it.. there MIGHT have been.. I just can't say that going on your argument that I can say that you have conclusively demonstrated one. )

I think perhaps the hats are on the wrong heads. The NT is essentially propaganda (a story propagated by an organization) without proof.

Coins, Rome, etc., are observables...

So riddle me my disconnect.

I've been accused of doing other people's homework, but I will answer your question as best as I can.

I call your disconnect " jumping to conclusions ".
You have some facts... and a theory to explain those facts.

There is nothing in the middle to make the link between the premise and the conclusion...

It's P, therefore, C.

Is it possible that your theory is wrong, and if so, how?

As to the disconnect....


1. You have facts.. lets agree that they are accurate and those constitute your premise ( P ).
2. They can be explained by a theory, Let's say ( P2 )
3. THEREFORE, that theory ( P2 ) is true?

I say that you have only demonstrated that the theory you have only can be POSSIBLY true, but not NECESSARILY true.

And lots of things are POSSIBLY true, even your theory.

There seems to be something important missing between P1, P2 and C.
There's a leap.
Logic abhors such leaps.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And Im not too sure that people base their lives on good ol' King Tut

Howard Carter & company sure as hell did LOL.

but we DO have physical evidence of Tut, not just stories. Bit of a difference, that.

Even if we did have physical evidence of Jesus, the skeptic will find a way to blossom out of it. Remember, when it comes to skepticism as it relates to Christianity...the goal is not to believe...the goal is to remain skeptical regardless of what evidence is presented.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 102 by Blastcat]

You would like a document that said Rome used religion? There are lots of them: Caesars were worshiped in Britain, it's called the "Imperial Cult." Gods were usurped everywhere Rome went. You want a Roman document saying this is policy? Why, there is no reason one should exist, even with conspiracy (which I don't claim). I am claiming observe Rome's practices in other countries. They did it, it isn't a question.
Fact: To touch the coins would make a Jew unclean because they claim another divinity.
Fact: Jesus advocated not only touching the coins, but paying tribute to a country under a divine and pagan monarchy.
Fact there were temples and pagan rights occurring in Jesus time and era.
Fact: Paul advocates supporting governments in general.

Where is the theory? What other things might disparage the result? What is the theory that can be proved wrong?

But I am more than happy to do any legwork you feel indicates further research.

Where are the holes in the argument?
There is no conspiracy, just an observation of facts.

If you don't like the idea Rome was responsible, then you still have Jesus being blasphemous, which states pretty plainly Jesus can not exist as described.

So pick your "theory," but the facts stand.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 103 by For_The_Kingdom]

And Im not too sure that people base their lives on good ol' King Tut

Howard Carter & company sure as hell did LOL.

Do you mean that archeology is a religious belief?

but we DO have physical evidence of Tut, not just stories. Bit of a difference, that.

Even if we did have physical evidence of Jesus, the skeptic will find a way to blossom out of it.

You are describing a pseudo-skeptic.
A skeptic accepts demands facts before she believes.

Do we happen to have physical evidence of Jesus?

Remember, when it comes to skepticism as it relates to Christianity...the goal is not to believe...the goal is to remain skeptical regardless of what evidence is presented.

You are talking about someone dogmatic. That is not skepticism, but the very opposite of skepticism.

Skeptics QUESTION beliefs.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

[For_The_Kingdom]

Do you mean that archeology is a religious belief?

Not at all. Wasn't Howard Carter biased about Egypt and King Tut in the same way you claim the Bible writers were biased about Jesus and Christianity?

A skeptic accepts demands facts before she believes.

So does believers.

You are talking about someone dogmatic. That is not skepticism, but the very opposite of skepticism.

Dude, I used "skeptics" in a general, standard sense....without the intention or need technical babble.

Skeptics QUESTION beliefs.

And?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 106 by For_The_Kingdom]

!

[center]Are theists skeptics?[/center]

A skeptic accepts demands facts before she believes.

So does believers.

So, what are the FACTS that we can all agree on that would lead us all to accept that your beliefs are TRUE?

Or are these "facts" ONLY acceptable to those who ALREADY believe?

Skeptics QUESTION beliefs.

And?

I can only reply to coherent questions.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So, what are the FACTS that we can all agree on that would lead us all to accept that your beliefs are TRUE?

Don't know. You tell me what kind of "facts" would lead you to personally believe in Christianity.

Or are these "facts" ONLY acceptable to those who ALREADY believe?

These "facts" are only acceptable to those that want to live eternity with the heavenly father and his son, Jesus Christ.

I can only reply to coherent questions.

Oh, my bad...I should have said "So, what is your point". Would that be coherent enough?