Evidence Jesus never existed:

Originally posted by sonship
Though their working on a new generation of people entusiastic about [b]Destination Moon (just in case they realize we've never really been there) I doubt we'll ever get sane human beings to take a trip to Mars.

We're probably not going to Mars.
Sorry. SciFi books and movies will have to do.
Re-runs of Star Trek and Star Wars will have to suffic ...[text shortened]... `s Mars Mission and WHY we can NOT go to MARS [/b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLZDVsAfUUU[/b]

When a theist starts to question whether or not man walked on the moon I have to wonder what exactly they are afraid of. Do they perhaps want to play down the achievements of man and keep him subservient to God? Is that what's going on here?

Man walking on the moon is a 'historical fact', fully evidenced for those who really want to applaud the achievements of humanity. (The conspiracy required to have faked spaced exploration is just silly). A man confident in his faith has nothing to fear from a species reaching for the stars.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

When a theist starts to question whether or not man walked on the moon I have to wonder what exactly they are afraid of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think thinking staging of moon landings using simulations is strictly a "theist" concern. I have heard about 20% Americans now suspect we didn't really walk on the Moon. I have heard no stats saying they were all or mostly theists.


Do they perhaps want to play down the achievements of man and keep him subservient to God? Is that what's going on here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's silly to me. Silly.

Look, I think it would be fantastic is it is really possible to put people on the Moon and bring them back alive. It's kind of expensive. And I would not put it beyond our leaders to say -

"Just in case after getting the people to pay for this stuff, if it doesn't work, we better have a backup plan to make them happy."

I would not put that beyond possibility. And if that is a strictly theistic suspicion, which i don't think it is, that would be surprising. Theism didn't stop Newton or Galileo from learning the mechanics of the universe.


Man walking on the moon is a 'historical fact',
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lately, I have been wondering about that.
I don't think theism has that much to do with it.

Look, we are living in such a futuristic world as compared to 2,000 years ago, no one can argue how far science can go.

Mind you a prophecy of Daniel was that "knowledge shall encrease" in the last days. My opinion is that the tech revolution in the last few centuries is likely the referant to that prophetic prediction that "knowledge will increase"

Daniel 12:4 about the end times.

Daniel 12:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Science = Knowledge.
Knowledge increase probably means a massive increase in Science.


fully evidenced for those who really want to applaud the achievements of humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can applaud the achievemants of humanity and also ask "How far are we going to extrapolate that? Are you going to believe EVERYTHING someone says has been done?"

How about I applaud the achievements of science but also wish not to be herded into a propaganda effort for other very important reasons to a nation state ?

Should we have unbridled optimism about everything scientists say we can do?

When I was a kid I saw this Disney Film called "Our Friend the Atom". Atomic energy was the wonderful answer to power for virtually "from now on". Latter I realized Disney's impressive movie said nothing about what the heck we do with this poison waste which is deadly for 100,000 years. That is waste that nobody wants stored in THEIR backyard.

How far do we take this expectation that technology will solve all human problems?


cy required to have faked spaced exploration is just silly). A man confident in his faith has nothing to fear from a species reaching for the stars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't "fear" men going to space, or Mars.
But don't pull my leg that we did something if we really didn't.

Nope Ghost, Dudes skipping across the lunar surface for real is no threat to my faith.
Can't you understand that I just want to know if it really happened ?
Some fishy stuff is going on here, it seems.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] When a theist starts to question whether or not man walked on the moon I have to wonder what exactly they are afraid of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think thinking staging of moon landings using simulations is strictly a "theist" concern. I have heard about 20% Americans now suspect we ...[text shortened]... d that I just want to know if it really happened ?
Some fishy stuff is going on here, it seems.[/b]

Sorry sonship but this really is a silly conversation. It's akin to you questioning if The Duke of Wellington really defeated Napoleon at Waterloo or if the Wright brothers really did take to the air.

Man did it. The very least you can do is acknowledge it.

I sense much fear in you...

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry sonship but this really is a silly conversation. It's akin to you questioning if The Duke of Wellington really defeated Napoleon at Waterloo or if the Wright brothers really did take to the air.

Man did it. The very least you can do is acknowledge it.

I sense much fear in you...

It is known that considerable staging, simulation, stage setting apparatuses for simulated moon flight training exist. Models of the surface of the moon, rail like tracks for simulated camera shots.

Now I doubt any kind of videoed dramatizations of Napoleon's battle with the Duke of Wellington exist to be broadcast as history. But there is some frequently perculiar videos of activity which might well have taken place under man made lighting in a expensive studio at a secret location in the the US.

So it is not the same. I don't doubt a Saturn Five liftoff.
I have little reason to doubt some near earth orbiting and videoed space capsule activity.
I cannot shake some of my doubts (yet) about fishy videos of moon walks.

You say its history.
I am wondering if the well staged propaganda is the "history" we were indoctrinated with.

Now, about the Wright brothers. I heard that there were maybe 60 some tries by them to get a machine to fly. And they finally did it.

Do you know how many successful experiments at landing a module on earth with the engineering of the Lunar Lander there were? Not ONCE was it successfully demonstrated on earth.

So you want me to believe that they took a machine that was not successfully tested ONCE, put some live human beings on it, and successfully operated it THE FIRST TIME in landing on the Moon ?

The Wright Brother's plane was improved upon and evolved into successful designs afterwards. No such similar history occurred with the improvement Lunar Lander. Maybe that was for good reason. But I don't think the history of air flight from the Wright Brothers successful tests is realistically compared to the sheer gamble of an unsuccessfully tested Lunar Lander.

Why are the backdrops the same as if staged?

How come when I go to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC there is a gigantic painting of a spectacular scene of an astronaut standing on the moon with thousands of stars behind him?
But in none of the videos supposedly taken on the moon no stars were seen.

Plenty of stars in the eye catching wall of spectacular art work.
What it was suppose to be a painting of, when videoed had a black sky - not one star.

It reminds me of a fresca in the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome or a great stain glass window religious scene in some Christian edifice.

Originally posted by sonship
Why are the backdrops the same as if staged?

How come when I go to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC there is a gigantic painting of a spectacular scene of an astronaut standing on the moon with thousands of stars behind him?
But in none of the videos supposedly taken on the moon no stars were seen.

Plenty of stars in the eye catch ...[text shortened]... eter's Basilica in Rome or a great stain glass window religious scene in some Christian edifice.

Seriously sonship. It's embarrassing.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Seriously sonship. It's embarrassing.

Was motion picture director Stanely Kubrick asked to help NASA make a movie of a moon landing ?

Check it out Stanley Kubrick (director of 2001 a Space Odyssey )

I wonder if there were confessional whistle blowing clues in Kubrick's movie "The Shining"

The REAL confession of Stanley Kubrick (not my title)
YouTube&t=295s

I don't trust RIchard Hoagland who I think may be filling the function of proposing fake whistle blowing only for it to be debunked. I discount contributions to the above video by Richard Hoagland.

That's right.
Removed.

TACITUS

(c. 56-120 C.E., or Common Era) Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient Roman historians. His Annals deal with the Roman Empire from 14 C.E. to 68 C.E. (Jesus died in 33 C.E.) Tacitus wrote that when a great fire devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Emperor Nero was considered responsible. But Tacitus wrote that Nero accused the Christians in order to “scotch the rumour.” Then Tacitus said: “Christus, the founder of the name [Christian], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.”—Annals, XV, 44.


SUETONIUS

(c. 69–a. 122 C.E.) In his Lives of the Caesars, this Roman historian recorded events during the reigns of the first 11 Roman emperors. The section on Claudius refers to turmoil among the Jews in Rome that was likely caused by disputes over Jesus. (Acts 18:2) Suetonius wrote: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christus], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” (The Deified Claudius, XXV, 4) Although wrongly accusing Jesus of creating disturbances, Suetonius did not doubt his existence.


PLINY THE YOUNGER

(c. 61-113 C.E.) This Roman author and administrator in Bithynia (modern Turkey) wrote to Roman Emperor Trajan about how to deal with the Christians in that province. Pliny said that he tried to force Christians to recant, executing any who refused to do so. He explained: “Those who . . . repeated after me an invocation to the [pagan] Gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image . . . and who finally cursed Christ . . . , I thought it proper to discharge.”—Pliny—Letters, Book X, XCVI.


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

(c. 37-100 C.E.) This Jewish priest and historian states that Annas, a Jewish high priest who continued to wield political influence, “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin [the Jewish high court] and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200.


THE TALMUD

This collection of Jewish rabbinic writings, dating from the third to the sixth centuries C.E., shows that even Jesus’ enemies affirmed his existence. One passage says that on “the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] the Nazarean was hanged,” which is historically correct. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Munich Codex; see John 19:14-16.) Another states: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public like the Nazarene”—a title often applied to Jesus.—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 17b, footnote, Munich Codex; see Luke 18:37.

Originally posted by galveston75
TACITUS

SUETONIUS

PLINY THE YOUNGER

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

THE TALMUD

I don't think anyone doubts that early Christians existed. In fact, I doubt anyone that has looked at the issue would doubt that Paul existed. So writers mentioning Christians and their beliefs does not, in any way, bolster the evidence that Jesus existed. Now if you could find a Roman source that did not get his information by way of Christians, then you might have a case. Execution or trial records perhaps.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[/b]

I don't think anyone doubts that early Christians existed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So few doubt that early Christians existed however they think Christ, after whom they were called, didn't really exist ?

I recall one of these writers wrote in a letter that true Christians were not able to be forced to retract their faith in Christ. it would be odd indeed if Christians had a reputation to Roman officials of being willing to die or be tortured for their faith, but the Christ for whom they went through these pains, didn't exist.

. In fact, I doubt anyone that has looked at the issue would doubt that Paul existed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I read Paul's virtual autobiographical review in Second Corinthians it is odd that he underwent such hardships for a non-existent Jesus Christ. Why would he suffer so much for a fictional person?

Under the hands of the Jews five times I received forty stripes less one;
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was ship-wrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep ..."

But Jesus Christ who called him to this apostleship didn't exist. Then he must have been mad.

"In journeys often, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers from my race, in dangers from the Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers in the sea, in dangers among false brothers ..."

But the Jesus Who called him to this service never existed? He went from being an obsessive persecutor to a selfless traveling apostle undergoing enough hardships to fill a couple of missionary lives. But Jesus Christ never lived, never existed?

"Apart from the things which have not been mentioned ..."

These were only some samples of his hardships in his missionary labors.

" ... there is this: the crowd of cares pressing upon me daily, the anxious concern for all the churches."

You're suggesting that both he and "all the [Christian] churches" knew that a Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

So writers mentioning Christians and their beliefs does not, in any way, bolster the evidence that Jesus existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I hear here is basically something like this in other words - "I can ALWAYS come up with at least a plausible reason to think Jesus never existed."

No one can really force me to believe, either, that Jesus or Tiberius Ceasar or Nero existed if I really can be exhaust less in imagining excuses to regard them as totally fictional people.

Now if you could find a Roman source that did not get his information by way of Christians, then you might have a case. Execution or trial records perhaps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you give the names of three prominent professional historians of the 20th or 21rst Century who teach that Jesus never existed?

As you do not trust Christians to be objective about it, so I ask you neither to expect me to trust an Atheist to be objective about it.

Wiki

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed. [17][nb 8][19][20][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Suetonius [my bolding]

From Wiki - [my bolding]

Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[37] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. [38] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[39] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds. [38][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

Do you think while these Christians were being tortured they were making up fables about the existence of the Person for whom they were undergoing these pains? It would have been easier for them to say "No such Christ ever even lived. Let me GO!! "

It is agreed that some people recanted or renounced their faith under duress. For it was a concern to some how to treat the Christians for re-admittance into fellowship who had cracked under persecution. We know those discussions went on.

If anyone knows of a case of persecuted people admitting Jesus never existed under suffering, I'd like to be made aware of it.

Originally posted by sonship
If anyone knows of a case of persecuted people admitting Jesus never existed under suffering, I'd like to be made aware of it.

This is the sort of dishonesty that made me no longer wish to hold lengthy discussions with you.
You are so insecure in your beliefs that you can't even discuss them honestly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is the sort of dishonesty that made me no longer wish to hold lengthy discussions with you.
You are so insecure in your beliefs that you can't even discuss them honestly.

Disagreement with you does not constitute dishonesty.

Folks, Most probably, to say the least, Jesus existed as a historical non-fictional person.

Even Bart Erhman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" distances himself from Jesus Mythers. He's no champion of people of faith like myself. He says those arguing Jesus never lived are making fools of themselves, as strongly skeptical as he is and qualified to be a NT scholar.