Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Was Jesus even born? [View all]rug
(82,333 posts)145. That doesn't even make sense.
If you are saying that Islam, or Scientology, or Mormonism were fabrications, that does not in the least establish causation here or provide evidence that this was a fabrication.
You know, Occam's Razor applies here as well as anywhere. The simplest explanation, returning to the OP, is that Jesus, or Yeshua, did exist, led a life of events, and contemporaries passed on what they believe they saw. This is not to say that elaborations did not occur or that the lily was not gilded, but it strongly suggests his existence. Any other explanation requires convolutions, inferences and leaps that the evidence does not support.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
210 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I agree, so the question I am posing is was there a Jesus in the context of what
gopiscrap
Nov 2013
#2
That hardly qualifies as an "historical artifact." At best, it's supposition.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#47
Your first point is typical of much of early history. The scources for three of the Gospels are very
Leontius
Nov 2013
#107
I also often wonder why anyone thinks such biblical eyewitnesses could write...
Moonwalk
Nov 2013
#181
I would say that historians believe that all of the writings written about Jesus in the first
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#12
It's difficult to have a conversation when points of fact cannot be agreed upon.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#17
Seriously. How can there be meaningful discussion if basic facts cannot be agreed upon?
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#59
So if you "simply don't know", then you take his existence as a matter of faith and not fact.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#63
Jesus existance is not a fact. That is clear. I believe the bible that it says he was here.
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#65
So you agree with my initial reply which is that you take it on faith not fact.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#86
so if I say I believe in man made climate change because that is the consensus among scientists
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#89
I say you base your opinion on nothing more than an argument from authority.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#90
I have no problem agreeing with you. I agree that there is not written accounts of him during his
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#96
First off I already own part of the bbrooklyn bridge so you don't need to sell me anything.
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#136
Yes I do own some bricks that were apart of the bridge. And as for my belief I am allowed to
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#142
I defend your right to believe whatever you will. That's what being an American is about.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#146
I understand. You don't elieve in the virgin birth. It is something not easy to believe in. I have
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#149
Whhat do you want from me? I believe it. If you have a problem with it that is your problem not mine
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#176
I don't have a problem with your faith. Just letting you know why i find it so easy to
stopbush
Nov 2013
#177
Well, I was hoping for a serious discussion, but your blind faith rather closes that door.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#179
No, the resurrection is implausible, because it is unknown, biologically
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2013
#36
Fair point. The Resurrection is implausible, while the existence of jesus is plausible.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#49
name me three published peer reviewed historians who say Jesus of Nazareth
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#54
peer reviewed historians who claim Jesus didn't exist are about as common as peer reviewed scientist
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#58
yeah because martian teapots are a real academic discipline like history, etc
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#111
it is evidence of the acceptance of his historical existence among even the most
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#72
Jesus may well have existed, a religious Jew and a revolutionary against Rome.
meti57b
Nov 2013
#173
I don't believe that there's any artifactual proof or any reference to Jesus that's dated to the...
Fridays Child
Nov 2013
#3
It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that we'll never really know. Like King Arthur or William
dimbear
Nov 2013
#8
Nope, there is nothing from the 1st century which supports a corporeal Christ
intaglio
Nov 2013
#143
Then it should be a simple task to identify it and establish how it wrote the Scriptures.
rug
Nov 2013
#166
"acknowledging such is a problem for your belief in the divinity of Jesus as portrayed"?
rug
Nov 2013
#93
Whoever came up with the phrase "Render unto Caesar" was real. But was it JC or Titus Flavius?
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2013
#31
Google it yourself. My response is my own and not dependent upon any previous DU post.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2013
#41
I don't need to. I read his thoroughly discredited crap in five threads in four forums.
rug
Nov 2013
#50
Don't be distracted by Joseph Atwill and the like, there are perfectly respectable scholars who
dimbear
Nov 2013
#43
That's an excellent site that should be visited by people making the argument against a corporeal
stopbush
Nov 2013
#175
Here's a musical take on your question, by Nashville singer-songwriter David Olney...
DreamGypsy
Nov 2013
#80
The only report from close to Bible times is that the family business was making farm implements,
dimbear
Nov 2013
#112
There are no contemporaneous writings stating that he existed. Duh.
Manifestor_of_Light
Nov 2013
#97
The burden is not on people who aren't aware of his existence, to disprove it.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#117
Why would someone write a fictitious account of a fictitious person four decades later?
rug
Nov 2013
#120
Still ignoring the one or the other billion adherents mutually exclusive faith issue huh?
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#139
Let's say there is none. That does not provide evidence of the necessary alternate explanation.
rug
Nov 2013
#152
You seem to have some fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#157
None is required, unless you're starting from a presuppositon that it is true.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#163
The premise that it must be true and thus disproven is irrational and begs the question. Sure.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#168
So the Buddha wrote nothing but a bunch of monks wrote down what they think they remembered
Leontius
Nov 2013
#193
That really was not the point I was making and I will not dispute your take on Buddhist
Leontius
Nov 2013
#195
And there's the harm to society that comes from the validation of magical thinking.
trotsky
Nov 2013
#188