Topic: Jesus was NOT the messiah (Read 4709 times)

Righteous Goy · « **on:** March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM »

Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.
On top of that, there is one VERY good argument to DISBELIEVE Jesus as messiah: we are not living in the messianic ear.

_____

On a completely OFF TOPIC note, when my wife asked what I was doing, because she didn't recognize the screen. I said (of course) "Defend and Debate." She misunderstood. She though it was an anti-fishing site, because she thought she heard me say, "Defending the bait."

End Bringer · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2008, 10:54:29 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM

Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.

We know. Such explanations like 'they took the body' to 'it was a twin brother' are all explanations to try to explain it away. It's that simply thinking of an alternative explanation is not prima facia evidence against the original explanation, that defeats this kind of attitude.

Quote

On top of that, there is one VERY good argument to DISBELIEVE Jesus as messiah: we are not living in the messianic ear.

We're more in the nose.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2008, 07:41:27 AM »

The "original explanation" was that there was never a Jesus to be resurrected.
The second "original explanation" was that his disciples took the corpse.
Neither need to be struggled with to be believable, while resurrection DOES.
And you have a good eye. I stick out my tongue!

Rabbitball · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2008, 09:07:54 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 19, 2008, 07:41:27 AM

The "original explanation" was that there was never a Jesus to be resurrected.

There are more than enough non-Christian references to Jesus to make that explanation laughable.

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 19, 2008, 07:41:27 AM

The second "original explanation" was that his disciples took the corpse.
Neither need to be struggled with to be believable, while resurrection DOES.
And you have a good eye. I stick out my tongue!

Actually, there is a powerful reason that the second explanation doesn't work: If it is true, then the disciples died for something they knew was a lie. Dying for something you believe in that turns out to be wrong is one thing; dying for a fabrication that you took part in defies human psychology.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2008, 06:15:06 PM »

Rabbitball opined:

There are more than enough non-Christian references to Jesus to make that explanation laughable.

You can provide examples? Remember please, that I'm looking for non-Christian accounts of the existence of Jesus, not reports of his followers.

Actually, there is a powerful reason that the second explanation [that his disciples took the corpse] doesn't work: If it is true, then the disciples died for something they knew was a lie. Dying for something you believe in that turns out to be wrong is one thing; dying for a fabrication that you took part in defies human psychology.

Not necessarily. Maybe they believed they would never be caught in their lie, or that they could lie their way out of their troubles. Maybe they were caught up in their own lie to the point they themselves believed in it until it was too late to change their fate. Maybe they were too stubborn to admit they were lying. Have others died for a lie? Certainly.

rareairpug · « **Reply #5 on:** April 12, 2008, 11:33:28 AM »

Quote

Maybe they were too stubborn to admit they were lying. Have others died for a lie? Certainly.

You must not have been here for this conversation:
http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=1903.0

End Bringer · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2008, 01:31:17 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on April 11, 2008, 06:15:06 PM

You can provide examples? Remember please, that I'm looking for non-Christian accounts of the existence of Jesus, not reports of his followers.

Jewish Talmud, the Roman historian Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian to name a few. Frankly there's more historical evidence for Christ's exsistence,then there is for other historical figures like Alexander the Great. And no one would dare suggest he didn't exsist, but then no one has a religious ax to grind with him either.

Frankly looking for non-Christian sources usually indicates the bias of the questioner who brushes off the 4 Gospels. To quote an anecdote:

Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2008, 05:04:50 PM »

Jewish Talmud, the Roman historian Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian to name a few.

I would be happy to hear the citations. But please remember my stipulation: reports of JESUS, not CHRISTIANS or CHRISTIANITY. I have not denied there is evidence of a group, or several groups, called "Christians." I'm looking for JESUS, and him only.

Frankly looking for non-Christian sources usually indicates the bias of the questioner who brushes off the 4 Gospels.

The gospels are rejected because they are filled with lies, misrepresentations and errors, and present as historical fact events that are nowhere mentioned in the writings of historians of the day and shortly afterward, events which, if true, certainly WOULD have been mentioned.
That they are four in stead of fourty is not the problem. The problem is that they are four which do not agree with each other, and in fact contradict each other. Their testimony certainly is not clear.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:49:41 PM »

End Bringer · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2008, 10:58:09 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on April 13, 2008, 05:04:50 PM

I would be happy to hear the citations. But please remember my stipulation: reports of JESUS, not CHRISTIANS or CHRISTIANITY. I have not denied there is evidence of a group, or several groups, called "Christians." I'm looking for JESUS, and him only.

How silly of me. Especially given how Tacitus mentioned in his Annals 15.44. (emphasisis mine):

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Clearly Tacitus wasn't a friend to Christianity given his negative review, but he did seem to acknowledge that the One based on Christianity very much did exsist, and was executed by Ponitius Pilate. Much like 4 certain Gospels we know.

Or how about Josephus's Antiquities:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Clearly such passages only show one thing: Jesus-mythers are truly grasping at straws.

Quote

The gospels are rejected because they are filled with lies, misrepresentations and errors, and present as historical fact events that are nowhere mentioned in the writings of historians of the day and shortly afterward, events which, if true, certainly WOULD have been mentioned.

See? A clear and unashamed bias and belief a priori with no interest in the evidence. Especially amusing given how the anecdote directly addresses this kind of "no one else mentioned it" attitude.

Quote

That they are four in stead of fourty is not the problem.

Then why do you bring it up as such when you say nowhere mentioned in the writings of historians of the day?

Quote

The problem is that they are four which do not agree with each other, and in fact contradict each other.

Not really, but I can see how you can relate to contradicting oneself.

Quote

Their testimony certainly is not clear.

Oh it's very clear. The fact that it differentiates on details (though differentiates in no way means contradict) is simply evidence to the fact that these were compiled seperately by four different individuals who focused on different aspects. As I told DB, if they had been the same almost word for word any lawyer with half a brain would have pointed out such a thing as evidence of a conspiracy, since one expects four different view points from four different people.

rareairpug · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:20:12 AM »

Quote

That they are four in stead of fourty is not the problem. The problem is that they are four which do not agree with each other, and in fact contradict each other. Their testimony certainly is not clear.

Even if this is the case, you were asking for evidence of the EXISTENCE of Jesus, which all four gospels clearly do attest to.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2008, 08:57:57 PM »

Cop, lol.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2008, 09:29:05 PM »

End Bringer said:

Tacitus mentioned [Jesus] in his Annals 15.44. (emphasis

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2008, 09:39:08 PM »

rareairpug said:

Quote [RG]:
"That they are four in stead of fourty is not the problem. The problem is that they are four which do not agree with each other, and in fact contradict each other. Their testimony certainly is not clear."

Even if this is the case, you were asking for evidence of the EXISTENCE of Jesus, which all four gospels clearly do attest to.

Answered above; the point had been brought up by another, and I was responding to him.
[ETA: not that you're not welcome to pipe in whenever you feel the spirit move you, as it were.]

End Bringer · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2008, 01:08:38 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on April 15, 2008, 09:29:05 PM

Christians claim this passage is a valid confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. However, when subjected to further analysis the authenticity of the passage appears to be highly questionable. First, it must be recognized that in history no topic is above questioning. If it is claimed that an author wrote a certain passage, then it is the responsibility of those making the claim to provide proof of authenticity. If such proof is not forthcoming, then it follows that the passage in question has no validity. Also, much of the Christian literature that has come down to us from the first and second centuries shows clear evidence of editing and/or interpolation.

Like I said there's more evidence for Christ's exsistence than most other historical figures like Alexander the Great. But no one has a bias against him, so no one would dare suggest he didn't exsist.

Quote

Among the more compelling reasons for doubting the authenticity of the statement in question is the fact that there is no evidence that Nero blamed any group for the fire nor is there any evidence that a group called "Christians" were well known in Rome during Nero's reign (54-68.) Also, there is no mention of Jesus by name. The passage, as important as it obviously is to Christian apologists, is never referred to by any of the early church fathers all of whom were familiar with Tacitus' writings. In fact, it was not mentioned by Christian writers until as recently as the15th century. 1 However, it is the issue of Pontius Pilate that stands out as clear evidence of forgery in the subject passage.

Unfortunately for you this objection has been summarily shattered by the fact that early church farthers wouldn't quote Tacitus given he often had such an anti-christian tone in his writings. It's excepted that Tacitus wrote for a selected audience, and thus his Annals wouldn't have even serculated immediately to the church. The Tacitaren literature is often praised for it's accuracy, care, and trustworthiness making such a passage completely reliable for evidence that Christ was acknowledged to exsist.

Quote

The name Pontius Pilate is used as if the reader would recognize it. But, there is no reason to believe that a pagan Roman living more than half a century after Pilate's time would recognize the name of a minor official governing a distant province. However, a Christian would recognize it instantly. This raises another important question, "Assuming that Tacitus actually wrote the passage, where did he get it?" He was far too late to have had any first hand knowledge of Jesus and the extraordinary events allegedly surrounding his life. So did he rely on the gospels as a source of information? They were available at the time Annals was written. If so, here we have a classic case of circularity.

Not at all. Careful inquiry and investigation was Tacitus's style. It's noted that his status would have given him access to imperial archives that were heavily restricted back then, but in remembering that Tacitus held political office and who his readers were, Senators and members of political offices, it's not surrprising that he would have knowledge of a government official.

Quote

There is also the problem of Pilate's title. According to Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 deluxe electronic edition), Pontius Pilate

Zagzagel · « **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2008, 08:28:58 PM »

Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.
On top of that, there is one VERY good argument to DISBELIEVE Jesus as messiah: we are not living in the messianic ear.

I can't imagine living in anyones ear.

I think that documents are just that.. documents.

At least there is admission to documents of Messiah Jesus by the raiser of this thread. :0

Christopher · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:40:34 PM »

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM

Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.

As a Christian, I agree with this statement. Is that weird? Let me explain: the notion of Christ's messiahship is specifically a matter of belief. For those that don't believe He was the Messiah, what salvation is there for them? For those that do, Christ is the Messiah, offering and extending salvation. No amount of extra-biblical proof can wrestle belief into the unbeliever's heart. So saying, I agree that documentation will not convince non-believers of something they have chosen to disbelieve.

As for any proposed proofs of Christ's ontological status as Messiah being explained away, history is written in bias, viewed with a bias, and applied, misapplied, and often denied with equal bias. The same documentation that is at once held suspect by one is also held to be true by another -- who governs what is actually true between opposing biases? Facts don't bear themselves out; they require interpretation and, thus, biases emerge.

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM

On top of that, there is one VERY good argument to DISBELIEVE Jesus as messiah: we are not living in the messianic ear.

This is not a proof. It is an assertion. Offer some support for your assertion and we can start to have a rational discussion.

Tony N · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:57:24 AM »

The ones who saw Jesus ascend into heaven did not need faith to believe He is the Messiah.

We, today, who have not seen yet believed do need faith.

The ones who wrote the four historical accounts called "the gospels" wrote what they saw and heard. Back then they did not need faith because they witnessed the nail prints etc.

Today we do need faith. But that does not disprove he is the messiah.

End Bringer · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:20:26 AM »

Quote from: Christopher on January 26, 2009, 10:40:34 PM

Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM
Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.

As a Christian, I agree with this statement. Is that weird? Let me explain: the notion of Christ's messiahship is specifically a matter of belief.

Not really, as there is the matter of the prophecies regarding the Messiah's identity (many beyond human control), and Christ was noted to have fullfilled all of them. To say there is no evidence, yet note there are indeed documents to the contrary is blatantly contradicting. As such it's simply a matter of special pleading to dismiss evidence solely because the conclusion leads somewhere that isn't liked.

Christopher · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2009, 08:18:17 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on January 27, 2009, 11:20:26 AM

Quote from: Christopher on January 26, 2009, 10:40:34 PM
Quote from: Righteous Goy on March 18, 2008, 08:51:21 PM
Despite the reams of documents which try to convince non-believers that Jesus was the messiah, there is no evidence Jesus was the messiah. The proofs the believer will bring can ALL be explained away.

As a Christian, I agree with this statement. Is that weird? Let me explain: the notion of Christ's messiahship is specifically a matter of belief.

Not really, as there is the matter of the prophecies regarding the Messiah's identity (many beyond human control), and Christ was noted to have fullfilled all of them. To say there is no evidence, yet note there are indeed documents to the contrary is blatantly contradicting. As such it's simply a matter of special pleading to dismiss evidence solely because the conclusion leads somewhere that isn't liked.

Indeed. Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of special pleading. I missed that one.

Author Topic: Jesus was NOT the messiah (Read 4709 times)