Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[BMCSean]

Have you guys seen the greatness that is the world best backside thread? You should check it out.

[BrianC]

I gave some misinformation and wanted to correct it. The article about half-lifes that I read said that they are not consistent, regardless of whether they've been corrupted/contaminated or not. That was a big revelation to scientists. Yes, they've always know that half-lifes are corruptible, but for them to be inconsistent is a big deal. Even if all of the other guesses they have to make about the object are 100% correct, the half-life could be completely inaccurate.

I read this article probably two years ago, so I wasn't able to find it again for you. But with some digging, I bet you can find it. And I highly recommend reading it, because I could me remembering the information incorrectly. I remember what whatever they'd discovered recently really killed their ability to date accurately, which was the point of the article.

I checked out a scholar's opinion on Pagan Christianity. He said that some of the information was incorrect or presented badly, and that they used few works by scholars' (and some outdated) in their references, so they missed a few things. Basically, he was showing that they made a little too big a deal out of some things, and missed a few facts here and there. But he confirmed a lot of what they said, as well. What I shared with you from that book, this scholar had no problem with. And I didn't share much from it. Thanks for bringing it up so I could check it out. I have some friends who are degreed in this area. I'll check some of the facts with them.

- Brian

[Maddhattter]

I gave some misinformation and wanted to correct it. The article about half-lifes that I read said that they are not consistent, regardless of whether they've been corrupted/contaminated or not. That was a big revelation to scientists. Yes, they've always know that half-lifes are corruptible, but for them to be inconsistent is a big deal. Even if all of the other guesses they have to make about the object are 100% correct, the half-life could be completely inaccurate.

I read this article probably two years ago, so I wasn't able to find it again for you. But with some digging, I bet you can find it. And I highly recommend reading it, because I could me remembering the information incorrectly. I remember what whatever they'd discovered recently really killed their ability to date accurately, which was the point of the article.

You're going to have to give me more than this. I can find no article in any peer-reviewed science journal that states this or even indicates it.

I checked out a scholar's opinion on Pagan Christianity. He said that some of the information was incorrect or presented badly, and that they used few works by scholars' (and some outdated) in their references, so they missed a few things. Basically, he was showing that they made a little too big a deal out of some things, and missed a few facts here and there. But he confirmed a lot of what they said, as well. What I shared with you from that book, this scholar had no problem with. And I didn't share much from it. Thanks for bringing it up so I could check it out. I have some friends who are degreed in this area. I'll check some of the facts with them.

- Brian

What scholar? Only one scholar? What was their specialty? What are their credentials? What resources did they use to confirm the data you've pointed out?

From my perspective, you're basically going, "Well, my friend agrees with the stuff I said!". Which wouldn't be any more compelling to you, if I said it, than saying it is compelling to me.

[YALE]

LMAO @ isotope half-lives being inconsistent! Take that, atomic clock! Did you take a physics lesson over frosted flakes from professor Deepak Chopra?

[racrguy]

Fuck you, Chopra, you (allegedly) corrupt motherfucker!

Hattter has far more patience than I do, the bullshit in this thread is astounding. "You'll believe after I destroy you!" Man, that's a GREAT tool to convince folks...

Edit: I had the wrong piece of shit, it's Dinesh D'Souza that's been indicted on campaign finance charges.

[YALE]

Fuck you, Chopra, you (allegedly) corrupt motherfucker!

Hattter has far more patience than I do, the bullshit in this thread is astounding. "You'll believe after I destroy you!" Man, that's a GREAT tool to convince folks...

Edit: I had the wrong piece of shit, it's Dinesh D'Souza that's been indicted on campaign finance charges.

Can't tell Indians apart? Raciss.

[racrguy]

Can't tell Indians apart? Raciss.

You mean they aren't all the same? They all smell of curry and shit.

[The King]

You mean they aren't all the same? They all smell of curry and shit.

...and nearly all of them, at least those here in the U.S., appear to be more highly educated than thou.

[jnobles06]

No way i can even begin to explain it all

Read "caesar's messiah" by joseph atwill. it will blow your mind. You should start from the beginning, but it starts getting really interesting around chapters 4-5.

FYI. I'm not christian. My step father and his father are ministers and I have read the bible more than most christians. I have come to the conclusion that arguing about christianity with a christian is almost pointless. It is almost impossible to refute established faith with logic unless you can disprove the basis of their faith, even then it is still difficult because the ego doesn't want to admit to being wrong. Atwill's book does a pretty damn good job at refuting everything christians were taught about the origin of the bible. So take it as you will. Its food for thought. I have nothing against christianity. I believe in the over all morals it teaches are good, I just don't believe the story. I just don't really like most christians because most of them hardly know anything about the bible, but somehow feel the need to look down on non-christians with some sort of righteous condemnation so they can feel superior; while at the same time being total hypocrites due to their own ignorance of the religion.

If you really have faith then reading the book won't dissuade you from christianity anyways.

[Maddhattter]

No way i can even begin to explain it all

Read "caesar's messiah" by joseph atwill. it will blow your mind. You should start from the beginning, but it starts getting really interesting around chapters 4-5.

Joseph Atwill is, in no way, a historian or an authority on the topic. All published and peer reviewed historians and scholars, that agree with his conclusion that Jesus wasn't ever an actual person (at least all the actual authorities I can locate that speak on his research), disagree with him. He's got no respect in the academic community on this topic and his credentials are only in computer science, which is a long way from biblical history.

FYI. I'm not christian.

How is this relevant?

My step father and his father are ministers and I have read the bible more than most christians.

By all indications, atheists generally know more than theists about their own religion.

I have come to the conclusion that arguing about christianity with a christian is almost pointless. It is almost impossible to refute established faith with logic unless you can disprove the basis of their faith, even then it is still difficult because the ego doesn't want to admit to being wrong.

Given that the increase atheist numbers is predominantly fueled by people leaving their religion, the evidence indicates otherwise.

Atwill's book does a pretty damn good job at refuting everything christians were taught about the origin of the bible. So take it as you will. Its food for thought.

Not according to the experts.

I have nothing against christianity.

So, you don't mind that, if Atwill is correct, that is has no foundation in reality?

I believe in the over all morals it teaches are good, I just don't believe the story.

If the first half of this statement is any indication, I'm not convinced that you actually read the story.

I just don't really like most christians because most of them hardly know anything about the bible, but somehow feel the need to look down on non-christians with some sort of righteous condemnation so they can feel superior; while at the same time being total hypocrites due to their own ignorance of the religion.

You're painting with an awfully wide brush here. There are some, I'll even agree that there are many, christians that do this. However, most don't ever think about the religious beliefs of others any more than they think about their own beliefs.

If you really have faith then reading the book won't dissuade you from christianity anyways.

According to the experts, even if you don't have faith, this book shouldn't dissuade you from anything.

[jnobles06]

Joseph Atwill is, in no way, a historian or an authority on the topic. All published and peer reviewed historians and scholars, that agree with his conclusion that Jesus wasn't ever an actual person (at least all the actual authorities I can locate that speak on his research), disagree with him. He's got no respect in the academic community on this topic and his credentials are only in computer science, which is a long way from biblical history.



How is this relevant?



By all indications, atheists generally know more than theists about their own religion.



Given that the increase atheist numbers is predominantly fueled by people leaving their religion, the evidence indicates otherwise.



Not according to the experts.



So, you don't mind that, if Atwill is correct, that is has no foundation in reality?



If the first half of this statement is any indication, I'm not convinced that you actually read the story.



You're painting with an awfully wide brush here. There are some, I'll even agree that there are many, christians that do this. However, most don't ever think about the religious beliefs of others any more than they think about their own beliefs.



According to the experts, even if you don't have faith, this book shouldn't dissuade you from anything.

Jesus, wasn't an authority in his day either, just the son of a carpenter. The apostles and the writers of the new testament didn't have any impressive credentials either, the ones we know of were fishermen and a tax-collector, according to the bible.

So what is the difference between me believing Atwill's ACTUAL words versus you believing in a second hand account of multiple sources; that conflict one another, of someone who might have existed 2k years ago?

Have you read the book or just read some summaries that pick his book apart? Seems like you are good at picking things apart. Maybe you should apply that skill to the bible. It might be worth your while since you base your life on it.

The book doesn't even say Jesus didn't exist. He just existed in a different form that what traditional Christianity teaches.

Just because Atwill isn't a biblical scholar doesn't mean he isn't correct. That is an assumption and a fallacy (red herring/ ad hominem). Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean you can't be successful at it and make it your life's work. The bible itself is an example of that truth.

I don't have a degree in philosophy, but i know how to use logic and reasoning to make a decision with out the bias crutch of faith making one for me.

EDIT


the FYI was just some courtesy info about my self just to give y'all an idea of where i was coming from, hence the reason i used the "FYI" acronym. i was a christian a majority of my life (until around 22) and one of the reasons i agree with its virtues and principals, the other because they are moral and ethical, although impractical. i figured you would infer that from me telling you my step father and his father were ministers.

and no i don't care if Atwill's book changes your mind or not. you have the freedom to believe whatever you wish. i just wanted to share a different perspective that people might have not considered. take it or leave it, i really don't care. it's your life.

[Maddhattter]

Jesus, wasn't an authority in his day either, just the son of a carpenter.

Actually, if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then he would, by definition, have been the ultimate authority. If he wasn't, he was still the ultimate authority on what he felt and believed. So, it would be his credentials as the source of his own words and beliefs that would make him said authority.

The apostles and the writers of the new testament didn't have any impressive credentials either, the ones we know of were fishermen and a tax-collector, according to the bible.

According to the bible, their not historians either. So, if they were who the bible claimed they are, they would be the ultimate authority on what they believed happened.

So what is the difference between me believing Atwill's ACTUAL words versus you believing in a second hand account of multiple sources; that conflict one another, of someone who might have existed 2k years ago?

I'll invite you to read this very thread before you embarass yourself more.

Have you read the book or just read some summaries that pick his book apart? Seems like you are good at picking things apart.

Have I read the book? Irrelevant. There is no reason to believe the man because there is no demonstration that he would know what he was talking about if it hit him in the face. You're the one touting Atwill's book as if he's some kind of an authority on the subject which, of course, he's not. What you seem so intent on not realizing is that there is no reason to believe anything the man has to say on biblical history or historicity.

Maybe you should apply that skill to the bible. It might be worth your while since you base your life on it.

So, you're spying on me? That's just un'Merican. Unless, of course, you're working for the government.

The book doesn't even say Jesus didn't exist. He just existed in a different form that what traditional Christianity teaches.

Or, it states that Jesus was a fictional entity created to pacify the Jews by using hyperbole to describe a roman cesear. Which pretty much states that Jesus didn't exist.

Just because Atwill isn't a biblical scholar doesn't mean he isn't correct.

I never said that he wasn't correct. Only that all the actual peer-reviewed work published in historical journals says that he isn't. You know, where the real scholars, historians and scientists publish their work?

That is an assumption and a fallacy (red herring/ ad hominem).

So, you don't know your fallacies. I can help with that.

Let's start with the informal fallacy of A HERRING!

A red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy tha involves bringing up an irrelevant point in order to destract the other person from addressing the actual topic.

Now that we understand what the fallacy is.... I didn't do that.

You brough in Atwill's book as an authoritative topic on the historicity of Jesus. As there is no support to believe that he actually is an authority and published peer-reviewed evidence that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about, he credentials are relevant and completely absent.

Next we have the formal fallacy of Ad Hominim.

An ad hominim fallacy is a logical fallacy that involves attacking your opponent's character as evidential support that they are wrong.

Hey, I didn't do that either! What I did was demonstrate that your appeal to authority was fallacious by explaining exactly why your source is not an authority on the matter at all.

Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean you can't be successful at it and make it your life's work. The bible itself is an example of that truth.

This is true, techically. You're right. It is possible. However, there is no reason to believe(and every reason not to) that Atwill's book is an example of that possibility.

I don't have a degree in philosophy, but i know how to use logic and reasoning to make a decision with out the bias crutch of faith making one for me.

By your inability to properly identify actual logical fallacies, I'd say that you don't really know how to use logic.

the FYI was just some courtesy info about my self just to give y'all an idea of where i was coming from, hence the reason i used the "FYI" acronym.

How is providing useless information a courtesy? Who you are and where you're coming from is irrelevant to whether or not Atwill's book is worth the paper it's printed on. Which, according to actual scholars, it's not.

i was a christian a majority of my life (until around 22) and one of the reasons i agree with its virtues and principals, the other because they are moral and ethical, although impractical.

Then, again, I'd say that you haven't actually read the book.

i figured you would infer that from me telling you my step father and his father were ministers.

If you assumed that I would infer that you think I would infer that you agree with bible's virtues, principals, and ethics based on your FYI, why did you bother stating that that same thing later in your post? If I assumed someone was going to infer something, I wouldn't bother spelling it out because I assume they'll infer it.

and no i don't care if Atwill's book changes your mind or not.

Yep, your passive agressive statements about how "If you really have faith then reading the book won't dissuade you from christianity anyways." sure does demonstrate that you don't care.

you have the freedom to believe whatever you wish.

I know. Did I imply somewhere that I was unaware of this?

i just wanted to share a different perspective that people might have not considered.

Based on actual scholarship, it shouldn't be, or have been, considered.

take it or leave it, i really don't care. it's your life.

I know you don't care. You've told me as much already. It's also incredibly obvious that you don't care based on your poor attempt at scholarship and logic followed by your ignorant attempt at doubling down on your initial mistake. I'm sure that everyone can see how much you "don't care".

[jnobles06]

Actually, if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then he would, by definition, have been the ultimate authority. If he wasn't, he was still the ultimate authority on what he felt and believed. So, it would be his credentials as the source of his own words and beliefs that would make him said authority.

yet another fallacy.

there is no book of jesus only second hand accounts by the apostles of what he might have said. so actually jesus never said anything.

if if's and but's were candy and nuts.

[Maddhattter]

if.........

Right. In fact, if you'd go back and actually pay any attention to your own artillery of ignorance, you'd notice that I was the one who added the if.

If we assume that Jesus didn't exists and the apostles didn't exist either, Atwill still shouldn't be believed because there's no reason to assume that he has any idea on the topic of biblical history and historicity. Based on actual scholars and historians, there's every reason to believe that he doesn't. Sure, he might have just lucked onto the answer, but doesn't mean he should be taken seriously on the topic. In fact, the only people who are giving him any credence are laymen. That should say mountains about his work.

[Maddhattter]

yet another fallacy.

there is no book of jesus only second hand accounts by the apostles of what he might have said.

if if's and but's were candy and nuts.

No, it's not a fallacy at all. You introduced the idea of Jesus only being the son of a carpenter. That creates the assumption of existence and accuracy of the gospels (that was further supported by your statement of who the author's of the gospels were), since something that doesn't exist can't be the son of anything. You introduced the topic, I responded. Again, you claim to understand logic but have consistently been unable to correctly identify a logical argument or fallacy.