• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Claim Jesus Was Married Is Based on a Forgery

ThoughtEx. said:
Nope, 100 percent free. You only have to pay 100 bucks if you want accredited. Which I don't know if that does anything or not. And me going into a long debate on Jesus, a very contested point even among historians, wouldn't be on point to this topic. The class is cool though, I take two or three from Edx every year.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the heads up. But you realize the purpose of a debate forum is to debate. You will not be considered credible if you make claims you can't back up. ;)
 
countryboy said:
Well, thanks for the heads up. But you realize the purpose of a debate forum is to debate. You will not be considered credible if you make claims you can't back up. ;)
Click to expand...

To be clear your calling me out because I don't want to prove that Christians and Secular historians have a different opinion on Jesus. I have made no attempt to assert any particular fact about Jesus other than his name and he was a Rabbi, and Secular History doesn't match Religion. What exactly am I backing up?

I offered the link not to prove anything to you, but because I thought you interested in the subject. If you were just trying to pick a fight, look elsewhere.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
There is historical evidence of Jesus, mainstream Christianity just doesn't acknowledge it. Scholars believe his name was Joshua, and he was a rabbi.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is absolutely zero objective historical evidence of Jesus at all. There isn't a single demonstrable contemporary eyewitness account. The name Jesus is a romanization, not a Jewish name. Most likely, it would have been Jehoshua or Yeshua.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Actually, there is absolutely zero objective historical evidence of Jesus at all. There isn't a single demonstrable contemporary eyewitness account. The name Jesus is a romanization, not a Jewish name. Most likely, it would have been Jehoshua.
Click to expand...

As I said a Contentious topic, that nobody agrees on, that would add little to this topic. If I wanted to debate historical Jesus I'd go to start a topic in religion.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because I'm interested HTR's handling of the issue, and it's an intriguing topic even for a nonbeliever.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even though I'm not religious myself, I do enjoy researching about certain aspects of different religions.
 
Josie said:
That's just untrue. Jesus was mentioned in places other than the Gospels and the people who wrote the 4 Gospels were direct eyewitnesses to Him and His words.

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity
Click to expand...

Pay attention to what is said. Jesus is MENTIONED by people who were not EYEWITNESSES, by people who NEVER ACTUALLY SAW HIM. And nobody actually thinks that the Gospel stories were written by eyewitnesses. There just is no demonstrable evidence of Jesus whatsoever.
 
Cephus said:
Pay attention to what is said. Jesus is MENTIONED by people who were not EYEWITNESSES, by people who NEVER ACTUALLY SAW HIM. And nobody actually thinks that the Gospel stories were written by eyewitnesses. There just is no demonstrable evidence of Jesus whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples. And Paul wrote much of the NT - he met Jesus post-death.
 
I don't want you guys to take this the wrong way, but I don't care enough to engage with you on historical Jesus at this time. You can keep quoting the same statement. I already said my peace in this thread please leave me alone. Even Jack and I have already ended our back n forth on the topic, amicably I might add. If this tangent is so important start a thread in Religion.
 
Josie said:
Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples. And Paul wrote much of the NT - he met Jesus post-death.
Click to expand...

No, actually, no secular scholars, you know, actual historians and not people operating on faith, agree that the Gospels were written by disciples. You're letting your faith interfere with your perception of reality.
 
Cephus said:
No, actually, no secular scholars, you know, actual historians and not people operating on faith, agree that the Gospels were written by disciples. You're letting your faith interfere with your perception of reality.
Click to expand...

But the overwhelming majority of scholars, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic or whatever agree that a historical Jesus existed. Jesus mythicism is a fringe opinion believed almost exclusively within atheist extremist groups.
 
CrabCake said:
But the overwhelming majority of scholars, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic or whatever agree that a historical Jesus existed. Jesus mythicism is a fringe opinion believed almost exclusively within atheist extremist groups.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between some itinerant Jewish rabbi wandering around Palestine upon whom the mythology of Jesus was posthumously draped, and a real, historical, miracle-doing, son of God. Jesus, the Jesus that was described in the Bible, simply never existed and NOBODY thinks he did. That there may have been a man or men that served as the basis of the myths of the Bible is not the same as saying Jesus was real.
 
Cephus said:
There is a difference between some itinerant Jewish rabbi wandering around Palestine upon whom the mythology of Jesus was posthumously draped, and a real, historical, miracle-doing, son of God. Jesus, the Jesus that was described in the Bible, simply never existed and NOBODY thinks he did. That there may have been a man or men that served as the basis of the myths of the Bible is not the same as saying Jesus was real.
Click to expand...

Your original claim was:
Cephus said:
Actually, there is absolutely zero objective historical evidence of Jesus at all.
Click to expand...

Now you're retreating towards a "well...there WAS a Jesus, but...".
 
CrabCake said:
Now you're retreating towards a "well...there WAS a Jesus, but...".
Click to expand...

No I'm not. My original statement stands. There is no objective evidence that any Jesus of any kind ever existed, period. There isn't a single first-hand demonstrably eyewitness account of Jesus, period. It simply doesn't exist. The point I was making is that if historians are arguing for a real Jesus, which again has no evidence but history is a very soft science, but if they are making that case, it isn't for a miracle man as depicted in the Bible, but for a real man that had the myths of godhood draped on him after the fact.

You just can't get to a supernatural Jesus no matter how hard you try.
 
Cephus said:
Actually, there is absolutely zero objective historical evidence of Jesus at all.
Click to expand...
Crabcake said:
But the overwhelming majority of scholars, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic or whatever agree that a historical Jesus existed. Jesus mythicism is a fringe opinion believed almost exclusively within atheist extremist groups.
Click to expand...
Cephus said:
There is a difference between some itinerant Jewish rabbi wandering around Palestine upon whom the mythology of Jesus was posthumously draped, and a real, historical, miracle-doing, son of God. Jesus, the Jesus that was described in the Bible, simply never existed and NOBODY thinks he did. That there may have been a man or men that served as the basis of the myths of the Bible is not the same as saying Jesus was real.
Click to expand...
Crabcake said:
Now you're retreating towards a "well...there WAS a Jesus, but...".
Click to expand...
Cephus said:
No I'm not. My original statement stands.
Click to expand...

I think what you're doing is clear to anyone who reads the exchange.
 
CrabCake said:
I think what you're doing is clear to anyone who reads the exchange.
Click to expand...

Being honest, yeah. Unlike the religious zealots who have an agenda and zero honesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom