Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 07:04:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Was Jesus Real, is he the same person as Buddha

Started by garnish, March 30, 2019, 05:55:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

biggytitbo

It's true, even the very dodgy claims of the historical Jesus come from years after his 'death'.




biggytitbo


Dex Sawash

Or "Chuy three-cocks" as the ladies call him

Soup Dogg

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 31, 2019, 02:08:12 PM
It's true, even the very dodgy claims of the historical Jesus come from years after his 'death'.

Yeah but no serious historian sets contemporaneous accounts as the evidentiary threshold for the likely existence of a guy two millennia ago.

kalowski

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on March 31, 2019, 08:49:52 AM
Or, as I spent much of what would now be called Year 2 believing, the sum of God.

I used to get so annoyed at the teacher that she kept saying this over and over again in her weird accent, but wouldn't actually tell us what the sum WAS.  2+2=4?  1+1+1=3?  A million times a million?  What was it, and how was God's magic sum also Jesus?

Probably 6×9=42, come to think of it.
A million times a million and 6×9 (=54) are not sums, they are products.

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: kalowski on March 31, 2019, 05:43:28 PMA million times a million and 6×9 (=54) are not sums, they are products.

Correct, have a gold star.

However, despite being a pretty bright and well-read six-year-old, I didn't actually know that at the time.


Quote from: kalowski on March 31, 2019, 05:43:28 PM6×9 (=54)

6×9=42 was a Douglas Adams joke.

Alternatively it's true in base 13.

NoSleep

Quote from: kalowski on March 31, 2019, 05:43:28 PM
A million times a million and 6×9 (=54) are not sums, they are products.

To a kid in school those are sums. (Amby - snap)

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Soup Dogg on March 31, 2019, 02:05:25 PM
This is absolutely false

If it is false then there'll be evidence for Jesus' existence, won't there?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim for a thing.
Quote from: Soup Dogg on March 31, 2019, 02:31:56 PM
Yeah but no serious historian sets contemporaneous accounts as the evidentiary threshold for the likely existence of a guy two millennia ago.

I'd suggest the opposite of that was true.  If something happened then there'll be evidence for it, otherwise it's just conjecture and belief.


To take it a step further, I don't think that religious people want evidence for their beliefs because evidence for their beliefs would remove any need for faith. That goes for Jesus and God both.

I don't have faith in cheese, dogs or curtains because they're palpable things.  I don't have faith that Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius erupting because of the records and of the evidence. 

If people want faith in things, that's great, but by its nature faith requires a certain amount of doubt.

So, I think it's highly unlikely that anything remotely resembling the New Testament's fantastical elements actually occurred due to the lack of evidence for them.  If someone chooses to believe that such things did occur, it can only be as a result of faith or, perhaps, wishful thinking.  Neither of which have much place in an accurate history.

NoSleep

Well, that's a great chunk of history assigned to the same dustbin on those grounds.

thenoise

Yeah a lot of history is a bit woolly tbh. Historians don't apply the scientific method to the study of the ancient past, it would be a bit silly.

See all the wild theories about Shakespeare. All we can say for absolute certain is that some plays were written. And all we can say with certainty about Jesus is that the bible was written, some ideas were put forth and a number of people adopted them. But as this is the most important part, I'm not sure that your hot take has as much bite as you intend.

Soup Dogg

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 31, 2019, 07:12:16 PM
If it is false then there'll be evidence for Jesus' existence, won't there?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim for a thing.
I'd suggest the opposite of that was true.  If something happened then there'll be evidence for it, otherwise it's just conjecture and belief.


To take it a step further, I don't think that religious people want evidence for their beliefs because evidence for their beliefs would remove any need for faith. That goes for Jesus and God both.

I don't have faith in cheese, dogs or curtains because they're palpable things.  I don't have faith that Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius erupting because of the records and of the evidence. 

If people want faith in things, that's great, but by its nature faith requires a certain amount of doubt.

So, I think it's highly unlikely that anything remotely resembling the New Testament's fantastical elements actually occurred due to the lack of evidence for them.  If someone chooses to believe that such things did occur, it can only be as a result of faith or, perhaps, wishful thinking.  Neither of which have much place in an accurate history.



You don't know what you're talking about. There is evidence for the existence of Jesus, that's why there is a broad historical consensus for his existence. There are no surviving contemporaneous accounts, there isn't such evidence for much of ancient history.

There is no proof for the existence of Jesus, no. But there is enough to say on balance of probabilities that 'he' existed (or rather, somebody existed on whom the JC of the gospels is based and around whom Christianity coalesced).

Your atheism is terribly edgy, and I can tell you are very smart. I'm not a Christian and I don't think Jesus went round performing miracles, obviously. I also don't think that my atheism should compel me into taking a stance that goes contrary to evidence and academic rigour.

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Soup Dogg on March 31, 2019, 07:44:16 PM


You don't know what you're talking about. There is evidence for the existence of Jesus, that's why there is a broad historical consensus for his existence. There are no surviving contemporaneous accounts, there isn't such evidence for much of ancient history.

There is no proof for the existence of Jesus, no. But there is enough to say on balance of probabilities that 'he' existed (or rather, somebody existed on whom the JC of the gospels is based and around whom Christianity coalesced).

Your atheism is terribly edgy, and I can tell you are very smart. I'm not a Christian and I don't think Jesus went round performing miracles, obviously. I also don't think that my atheism should compel me into taking a stance that goes contrary to evidence and academic rigour.

I see.  So simultaneously there both is and isn't evidence for the existence of Jesus, and you've decided to read into my perspective some form of edginess.  Is that about right?

Quite a passive aggressive post from you which might have been better had you made your mind up about whatever it is you think and maintaining some form of internal consistency in your condescension before trying to be quite such a smart arse about it. 

garnish

If we doubt Jesus then we may as well doubt Alexander the Gretna or William Wallace.

Ididn't see with my own eyes but I know because others tell us, why is this difficult to understand

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: garnish on March 31, 2019, 10:58:52 PM
If we doubt Jesus then we may as well doubt Alexander the Gretna or William Wallace.

Ididn't see with my own eyes but I know because others tell us, why is this difficult to understand

Because there is evidence of both of these people's existence from the time they lived and there isn't any for Jesus. 

Seems reasonable to me. 

garnish

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 31, 2019, 11:01:58 PM
Because there is evidence of both of these people's existence from the time they lived and there isn't any for Jesus. 

Seems reasonable to me.

Not for Alexander the Grea no

MiddleRabbit

Quote from: garnish on March 31, 2019, 11:05:07 PM
Not for Alexander the Grea no

There is though.  Babylonian clay tablets? 

There were quite a lot of writers around at the time of Jesus' supposed existence and yet none of them mention him once. 

I don't know that Jesus didn't exist and nor am I looking to try to prove a negative.  Why do you want him to exist?  I can see a few reasons why different people would want that, whether they're Christians or otherwise.

What do you suppose my motivation is?  Oh yeah, edginess.  That must be it.  It must be great to have faith, mustn't it?  Certainly saves a lot of questions...


Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 31, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
Why do you want him to exist?  I can see a few reasons why different people would want that, whether they're Christians or otherwise.

Why do you think a non-Christian would want him to be real?

gib



Captain Z

When you think about it, is there any actual evidence that Theresa May exists?

garnish

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 31, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
There is though.  Babylonian clay tablets? 

There were quite a lot of writers around at the time of Jesus' supposed existence and yet none of them mention him once. 

I don't know that Jesus didn't exist and nor am I looking to try to prove a negative.  Why do you want him to exist?  I can see a few reasons why different people would want that, whether they're Christians or otherwise.

What do you suppose my motivation is?  Oh yeah, edginess.  That must be it.  It must be great to have faith, mustn't it?  Certainly saves a lot of questions...

I don't understand why you want to be edgy

Mr_Simnock

He is being dumb more than edgy. There is a lot of research online about the historicity of Jesus but appears too lazy/stupid to read up on it, he could do worse than starting with the wiki page on it.

Dex Sawash


JesusAndYourBush

I saw a documentary last year which said that there was no solid evidence that Jesus existed.  They also speculated that it's quite likely that crucifixions in those days were done with a cross in the shape of an X.  The idea of Christ on a T-shaped cross was invented by some Roman guy a few centuries later.

There's more evidence for a bunch of Old Testament stuff than there is for Jesus.


Soup Dogg

Quote from: MiddleRabbit on March 31, 2019, 10:55:10 PM
I see.  So simultaneously there both is and isn't evidence for the existence of Jesus, and you've decided to read into my perspective some form of edginess.  Is that about right?

Quite a passive aggressive post from you which might have been better had you made your mind up about whatever it is you think and maintaining some form of internal consistency in your condescension before trying to be quite such a smart arse about it.

It is consistent. There is evidence, there isn't proof.

marquis_de_sad

Quote from: Soup Dogg on April 01, 2019, 07:25:42 AM
It is consistent. There is evidence, there isn't proof.

This is correct. But in my experience, people who have decided that Jesus never existed cannot be convinced otherwise. Even if you were able to travel back in time and take them to the sermon on the mount, they would still say that it's just a bunch of crisis actors paid by the Catholic Church who have also travelled back in time and have been for years do you think they haven't got secret hyper advanced technology don't ask me for proof I'm not here to spoonfeed you

MiddleRabbit

I was accused of trying to be edgy due to assumed athiesm, which was yet another assumption.  I'm not an atheist.

Who, other than Christians have a vested interest in proving the existence of Jesus?  Some historians of that period I would have thought.  As we see here, it's a contentious topic with an exploitable market.

Quote from: marquis_de_sad on April 01, 2019, 08:14:16 AM
This is correct. But in my experience, people who have decided that Jesus never existed cannot be convinced otherwise. Even if you were able to travel back in time and take them to the sermon on the mount, they would still say that it's just a bunch of crisis actors paid by the Catholic Church who have also travelled back in time and have been for years do you think they haven't got secret hyper advanced technology don't ask me for proof I'm not here to spoonfeed you

As there is evidence here on this thread contrary to your experience ("I don't know whether Jesus existed..."). it seems a bit like you're the one who's currently struggling to deal with the reality.  As for 'spoonfeeding', if you make a claim for something, I'm afraid it's entirely up to you to prove it, whether or not you enjoy using semantics to pretend you don't.  I've had to spoonfeed you regarding the fact that I'm entirely open to evidence, you just sound sore that you don't have any.  Well done for invoking a third logical fallacy though - Argument Redictio Ad Absurdum.

There are coins with the face of Alexander on them.


I don't have a vested interest in whether Jesus existed or not. I gather that a lot of people believe he did, despite the lack of evidence but to accept that would be to accept a logical fallacy. In this case, either Argument From Authority or Argument Ad Populum.  Both of which are all that have been offered here.

As I've said - a couple of times - I don't know whether Jesus existed but the lack of evidence and the fallacious arguments presented here in support don't sway me.

Similarly, the suggestion that he must have existed or why would Christianity have gained in popularity at that time isn't a very good suggestion, unless we're also suggesting that Mithra is real too.  The same could be said for the recent increase in numbers of people believing at the Earth is flat.  Does that mean that there must be something in it?  I would say not and the reason it doesn't is because of the evidence that stands against that hypothesis.


Aesop probably didn't exist - as an individual - either, but does that make any difference to the value of 'his' fables?  I would say it doesn't make any difference.  Why does the existence or otherwise of Jesus matter?

Buelligan

Can I just say how much I love it that a lighthearted thread about whether Jesus and Buddha are the same person is able to trigger this much drama?  I love drama and war and this is a beautiful example of how us humans knit our own.  Picking holes, I know, but I think it needs more Buddha-controversy though, no?


kittens

i - don't ask me how - know - again, please don't ask me how - that - and i just reiterate, please, please do not ask me how - Jesus - don't ask me how i know but believe me that i do - existed - please, i beg of you, do not ask me how i know but accept that i do know, but, please, and i cannot stress this enough, DO NOT ask me how.