• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shad

Veteran Member
First off I disagree with the notion that the existence of God is "unproven"...even though "proof" is a bad term to use here...I will put it like this, I believe that the existence of God is more PROBABLE/PLAUSIBLE than its negations, as I have at least 5 reasons why I believe that God exists, and one reason why I believe that this God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

God has no been proven by any objective standard so the idea is unproven. You believe in one of many possible but unverified and unfalsifiable ideas. Which is exactly what I said.

So once you can successfully refute all 6 of these independent arguments, then you have no case whatsoever.

One does not prove a negative. You presented claims, as others do and are required to prove these claims. Since the later claims are based on an unproven claim itself secondary claims tied to this first unproven idea can be dismissed. I only need to point out the first claim is unsound in order to show later claims are unsound as well.



I dismiss it not necessarily just because I don't find it possible, but because I don't see any evidence FOR IT...that, followed by the fact that I have arguments AGAINST it, makes its possibility even more remote.

You are just repeating the fallacy. You do not find it possible does not mean something is impossible. You secondary arguments have already been shown to be flawed.



God doesn't "violate" physics. All science is conditional...certain conditions have to be met for things to happen...God simply is beyond these conditions.

Splitting the Red Sea violates physics. Turn water into wine violates physics. IF God is beyond physics he violates physics just by being...

The method used is "being God". Before you can even begin to answer these questions, as you just stated that "God answers require far more explanations", how about you answer questions that are supposed to be naturalistic and thereby simplier...such as how do you explain the origin of consciousness, the universe, and life...before you put the cart before the horse and start jumping the gun, how about explaining those things? Those are the simpler areas of inquiry, right?

God is the claim not the method.

Origin of consciousness is found in evolution and brain development. Experiments with Apes shows these animals are capable of rational thought, recalling memory and the communication of basic ideas. There are a number of theoretical ideas for cosmology. None are prove no more than God. You are free to pick one if you wish but this does not mean it is fact. Nor do current theories need to be accept to question the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis must stand on it's own merit not that other ideas nor their failures.



Reading comprehension. No where in my posts was it said or implied that "because Christianity has the most followers, it is therefore the one true religion".

Biggest religion implying size of it's membership. This is an ad populum fallacy as membership does not imply one has influence. History is full of negative results due to his influence which are not countered by believers,


The disciples were players on a 12 (11) team roster...and Jesus was the owner, gm, and coach of the team. Jesus was the leader, and his disciples were the followers.

He was an absent GM. His followers did all the work.



Reading comprehension. Again, my point was never "because Christianity has the most followers, it is therefore true".

Still a fallacy as you are using belief in numbers to justify a position. Your reply was addressing evidence.

You are assuming that the "earliest copy" implies "earlies originals".

No I am basing this on the writing style of Mark, the earliest Gospel. A writting system of a poety not that of a tax-man. No honest scholarship believes Mark was written by the apostle.



No one doubts that Paul wrote 1Corinthians. That is all I need.[/quote]

For this verse sure but for other passage and letter authorship is required to be established. This is honest scholarship not a religious ideology.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
There's a number of reasons why the authenticity of that passage may be doubted: Is Tacitus Reference an Interpolation?

Hmm, well...two can play this game...Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?

See? I posted a link that agrees with my position. So who wins?

I mean geez, the Tacitus account has absolutely no theological implication whatsoever, it just has a small snippet of what happened during the time of Nero's reign, which involved early Christians...is that to much to accept?

He mentioned the Christians, and also the guy who started the Christian movement, "Christus" and a superstition that resulted after his crucifixion....and THATS IT...he kept it moving. He didnt expand on anything, he didn't get in depth, that is all he said....no supernatural claims, no claims of Deity, no theological babble...nothing...so why is hard to accept???

Or is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure and he is actually MENTIONED by external-biblical and external Christian sources so dang hard to accept? I think that is what the real problem is.

Please.
 

Phil25

Active Member
Hmm, well...two can play this game...Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?

See? I posted a link that agrees with my position. So who wins?

I mean geez, the Tacitus account has absolutely no theological implication whatsoever, it just has a small snippet of what happened during the time of Nero's reign, which involved early Christians...is that to much to accept?

He mentioned the Christians, and also the guy who started the Christian movement, "Christus" and a superstition that resulted after his crucifixion....and THATS IT...he kept it moving. He didnt expand on anything, he didn't get in depth, that is all he said....no supernatural claims, no claims of Deity, no theological babble...nothing...so why is hard to accept???

Or is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure and he is actually MENTIONED by external-biblical and external Christian sources so dang hard to accept? I think that is what the real problem is.

Please.
Pretty much everything Tacitus wrote is accepted(considered one of the greatest historian of Rome) but when he mentions Christians, "its all made up by later Christians". Huh, Pretty funny.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Hmm, well...two can play this game...Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?

See? I posted a link that agrees with my position. So who wins?

I mean geez, the Tacitus account has absolutely no theological implication whatsoever, it just has a small snippet of what happened during the time of Nero's reign, which involved early Christians...is that to much to accept?

He mentioned the Christians, and also the guy who started the Christian movement, "Christus" and a superstition that resulted after his crucifixion....and THATS IT...he kept it moving. He didnt expand on anything, he didn't get in depth, that is all he said....no supernatural claims, no claims of Deity, no theological babble...nothing...so why is hard to accept???

Or is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure and he is actually MENTIONED by external-biblical and external Christian sources so dang hard to accept? I think that is what the real problem is.

Please.

I posted that to show why some people have doubts about that passage. There's still no other corroboration or evidence for Christians being persecuted and killed under Nero, especially in the brutal and gory manner that Tacitus, if he did actually write, puts it. So, to me, the verdict is still out. But since Christians have fabricated so many other instances of persecution, it is probable that that is another example of that.

I have every reason to be skeptical of Christianity's claims about its early history what with all the known lies and distortions that have been passed off as truth by them. It really shouldn't be too much to ask for evidence of claims. I don't settle for hearsay written decades or centuries after the fact is alleged to happen. If someone wants to look down on me for questioning things, that's not my problem. I'm interested in truth only.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
What's the false dichotomy? Jesus was either historical or not.


The STORY of Jesus can be a little of both. History is about the STORY, hiSTORY - historicity is about trying to connect STORIES to a living person.

The STORY of Jesus can be a little of both, you have a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say it is either this or that, when there are other possibilities.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
The STORY of Jesus can be a little of both. History is about the STORY, hiSTORY - historicity is about trying to connect STORIES to a living person.

The STORY of Jesus can be a little of both, you have a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say it is either this or that, when there are other possibilities.

Oh man I never even realized the word story is part of the word history. This is VERY convincing evidence that you are not a quack. :D
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Oh man I never even realized the word story is part of the word history. This is VERY convincing evidence that you are not a quack. :D

Indeed. I was amazed when you made the same error that I addressed.

The STORY of Jesus is likely to be a combination of myth and truth - you rejected that possibility on the same basis as disciple did; You have confused the story with the man.

I recall that you, outhouse and nash8 all seemed to be labouring under such a simple misconception - that one must be either a mythicist or a historicist, because you think Jesus must either have existed or not - when of course it is the STORY of Jesus that can be part truth and part myth.

How you have managed to retain such a blunt misconception for so long is somewhat of a wonder.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Refute this.

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body

Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians.[12] When he wrote his account, Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia, and as a member of the inner circle in Rome he would have known of the official position with respect to the fire and the Christians.[12]

What exactly am I supposed to be refuting? Best guesses as to how Tacitus might've known such things if he did write that passage? There's no evidence of anything in that Wikipedia text.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What exactly am I supposed to be refuting? Best guesses as to how Tacitus might've known such things if he did write that passage? There's no evidence of anything in that Wikipedia text.

. But since Christians have fabricated so many other instances of persecution, it is probable that that is another example of that.


There is no evidence for you to substantiate this claim.

Each instance stands or falls on its own merits.


This one has evidence towards historicity. Is it 100% certain? no it is not. But your claim of "probable fabrication" doesn't fly either.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
There is no evidence for you to substantiate this claim.

Each instance stands or falls on its own merits.


This one has evidence towards historicity. Is it 100% certain? no it is not. But your claim of "probable fabrication" doesn't fly either.

Then disprove that claim of you can.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
There is no evidence for you to substantiate this claim.

Each instance stands or falls on its own merits.


This one has evidence towards historicity. Is it 100% certain? no it is not. But your claim of "probable fabrication" doesn't fly either.

Well, okay. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it that way. But the overall point still stands. There's no corroboration or evidence that such a persecution of Christians under Nero did occur. I'd also like to see evidence that Nero even knew of the existence of Christians. Why is Tacitus the only person who wrote about it, and that was almost a generation later? Did the early Christians even quote him on it? It's not stacking up for me.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
God has no been proven by any objective standard so the idea is unproven. You believe in one of many possible but unverified and unfalsifiable ideas. Which is exactly what I said.

Either God exists, or he doesn't exist, and I've already stated that I believe the arguments that are used for God's existence makes his existence more plausible/probable than not...that is my OPINION..and again, if you can refute any of those arguments, I'd love to see you try.

One does not prove a negative.

This is a common quip by unbelievers.."you can't prove a negative", as if God doesn't exist until one can prove that he does...which is illogical...a guy in China may not be able to prove that I exist right now, so I guess my existence is a negative until he can prove it???

Illogical. There may not be one single shred of evidence for the existence of God, but that STILL doesn't mean that such a being doesn't exist.

You presented claims, as others do and are required to prove these claims. Since the later claims are based on an unproven claim itself secondary claims tied to this first unproven idea can be dismissed. I only need to point out the first claim is unsound in order to show later claims are unsound as well.

We are talking about Christian claims of miracles, and in order to prove that miracles don't occur, you have to prove that God doesn't exist. If you have an argument against theism, then I'd love to hear it. Just sitting back folding your arms and shaking your head "no" won't do it.

Again, the claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that by the power of God, Jesus was able to perform miracles. We believe this by first establishing the existence of God first, and this can be done by presenting various arguments for such a beings existence. Once that is established (and it is), then you can focus specifically on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, and once that is established (and it is), then a positive case is made.

The arguments are out there....and I'd love to see your refutation of ANY argument regarding Christian theology.

You are just repeating the fallacy. You do not find it possible does not mean something is impossible. You secondary arguments have already been shown to be flawed.

Again, I said that since there is no scientific evidence supporting it, then I have no reason to believe it, that, followed by the fact that I do think it is impossible, also the other fact that I have counter-arguments against it, makes me not a believer in abiogenesis.

So I have three reasons why I don't believe in abiogenesis...

1. There is no scientific evidence supporting it
2. I think the concept is absurd
3. I actually have arguments against it

Splitting the Red Sea violates physics. Turn water into wine violates physics. IF God is beyond physics he violates physics just by being...

This is a clear cut case of begging the question in favor of naturalism. And its funny you speak of violating physics, when naturalism violates logic.

Origin of consciousness is found in evolution and brain development.

Like I told others..since the brain is made up of matter, if you were to shape and mold a brain, where would you get the consciousness from? You have the brain, so where would the consciousness from?

Experiments with Apes shows these animals are capable of rational thought, recalling memory and the communication of basic ideas.

And?

There are a number of theoretical ideas for cosmology. None are prove no more than God. You are free to pick one if you wish but this does not mean it is fact. Nor do current theories need to be accept to question the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis must stand on it's own merit not that other ideas nor their failures.

What??

Biggest religion implying size of it's membership. This is an ad populum fallacy as membership does not imply one has influence. History is full of negative results due to his influence which are not countered by believers,

Reading comprehension.


He was an absent GM. His followers did all the work.

He was present for 3 years, and after he left, the disciples carried it on from there...and now Christianity is the worlds largest religion, so apparently, they did something right.

Still a fallacy as you are using belief in numbers to justify a position. Your reply was addressing evidence.

I am using numbers to justify the fact that what Saint claimed wasn't enough, or what Saint claimed "should have been" doesn't matter, because Christianity is the largest religion despite all that...which is completely different than saying "Christianity is true, because it has x amount of followers".

No I am basing this on the writing style of Mark, the earliest Gospel. A writting system of a poety not that of a tax-man. No honest scholarship believes Mark was written by the apostle.

Matthew was the tax collector, not Mark.

For this verse sure but for other passage and letter authorship is required to be established. This is honest scholarship not a religious ideology.

I repeat, 1Corin is all I need.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Well, okay. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it that way. But the overall point still stands. There's no corroboration or evidence that such a persecution of Christians under Nero did occur. I'd also like to see evidence that Nero even knew of the existence of Christians. Why is Tacitus the only person who wrote about it, and that was almost a generation later? Did the early Christians even quote him on it? It's not stacking up for me.

At least your reasonable. There is not a lot of evidence for much of the early movement.

All we have is educated guesses, and many aspects are hotly debated. Many are not important enough to give a hoot one way or the other.


On this topic there is good cases on each side, and your point about previous examples are valid, but not enough weight to sway the evidence without more to go on.


All I have learned, and this is just my opinion. But the movement was a divorce from Judaism with Jesus death. When he died the Galilean Jewish movement also died.

What did not die was the mythology in the Diaspora and the Hellenistic proselytes. Because so many Proselytes all through the Empire went to Passover each year, the mythology grew and was returned to all corners of the Empire every year. That's why in pauls time the movement was very widespread and paul tells us there were other teachers and scripture. Much of what could be pieces of mythology that ended up in the gospels. We know the passion had been out for a long time in written form before Marks book used it. So we see a very large amount of Christians by Neros time as we already had many Epistles and Pauls apostles had already possibly written some their epistles to soften Pauls views up. [I think ill get dates] "some before most after"

And the fact they hired Paul to hunt down this sect when it was smaller, tells you there was fear in politics and government about this small sect. It was not off the radar as just jews in pauls time.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
At least your reasonable. There is not a lot of evidence for much of the early movement.

All we have is educated guesses, and many aspects are hotly debated. Many are not important enough to give a hoot one way or the other.


On this topic there is good cases on each side, and your point about previous examples are valid, but not enough weight to sway the evidence without more to go on.


All I have learned, and this is just my opinion. But the movement was a divorce from Judaism with Jesus death. When he died the Galilean Jewish movement also died.

What did not die was the mythology in the Diaspora and the Hellenistic proselytes. Because so many Proselytes all through the Empire went to Passover each year, the mythology grew and was returned to all corners of the Empire every year. That's why in pauls time the movement was very widespread and paul tells us there were other teachers and scripture. Much of what could be pieces of mythology that ended up in the gospels. We know the passion had been out for a long time in written form before Marks book used it. So we see a very large amount of Christians by Neros time as we already had many Epistles and Pauls apostles had already possibly written some their epistles to soften Pauls views up. [I think ill get dates] "some before most after"

And the fact they hired Paul to hunt down this sect when it was smaller, tells you there was fear in politics and government about this small sect. It was not off the radar as just jews in pauls time.

Okay...but where is the evidence for all that outside of the New Testament? Where's the evidence for all these 1st century churches and large numbers of Christians in various places of the Empire? From what I know, Christianity was pretty much unheard of for the first century. I'm honestly asking for historical evidence of all this, outside of the Bible.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Okay...but where is the evidence for all that outside of the New Testament? Where's the evidence for all these 1st century churches and large numbers of Christians in various places of the Empire? From what I know, Christianity was pretty much unheard of for the first century. I'm honestly asking for historical evidence of all this, outside of the Bible.

Pauls undisputed epistles, and what he tells us about combatting other beliefs and teachers and scripture gives us a glimpse.

Since the gospels are compilations with some that reflect early politics and historical aspects, they can be used.


Since we only have a very small fraction of literature that once existed, we have to use what we have and place it under a microscope.

We get Josephus and that is a limited window that has to be placed under a microscope as well.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Take one example out of scores (No! .... I'm not working on the whole list!)...... Jesus meeting with John the Baptist. Where's your OT 'lift' on that one? :)



"The first allusion or implicit reference to the Hebrew scriptures comes early in the story in Mark 1, when the author introduces the character of John the Baptist, whom the author associates with the Jewish hero figure Elijah... Mark 1:6 refers to 2 Kings 1:8, which provides a description of Elijah." R.G.Price


Why do you ask?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Okay...but where is the evidence for all that outside of the New Testament? Where's the evidence for all these 1st century churches and large numbers of Christians in various places of the Empire? From what I know, Christianity was pretty much unheard of for the first century. I'm honestly asking for historical evidence of all this, outside of the Bible.

There are some, I've read some. You just have to find them. They (the early Xians), seem similar to Quakers and such, by description/
 

outhouse

Atheistically
whom the author associates with the Jewish hero figure Elijah... Mark 1:6 refers to 2 Kings 1:8, which provides a description of Elijah." R.G.Price


Why do you ask?

1:8 And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite

And that is all he has to tie all of John to Elijah. Pretty weak by any standard, This is why Price has no credibility at all, besides getting into myther forums begging us for medical money when he had shingles. How embarrassing.

You demand so much evidence from historicity, but for mythcism you will accept any trash.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's a bunch of crap and another distortion of history by Christians. If monotheism was so popular among the people, they wouldn't have needed to persecute the Hellenes for centuries.

Two notes here:

1) "Hellenes" literally means "Greeks" (it's from the Greek Ἕλλην" which in Latin was often transliterated "Hellēnes"). Perhaps you mean "Hellenist" which, albeit not limited to Christians by any means, did refer often to Greek-speaking Jews and the earliest Christians who provided the foundations of a network allowing theology, monotheistic ideas, etc., to spread.
2) It wasn't monotheism that became popular so much as it was theology or belief systems (as opposed to pagan orthopraxy and complete absence of orthodoxy so much so that the notion of "right belief" was incomprehensible). Many pagan cults borrowed from or incorporated aspects of the budding Christian cults into theirs, from Mithras and Attis to the Emperor Julian (who tried to create a monotheistic paganism, not that dissimilar to the proto-monotheistic cosmology in late Platonic texts).

Christianity wasn't popular, but some of its earliest converts were able to build on a form of "religion" (Judaism) that was basically unparalleled in its disconnect from any particular place or specific cultic practices as well as not only a belief system but a set of religious texts that were so connected to belief they were translated into Greek some 2 centuries before Jesus. The incorporation of early Christian theologians of pagan philosophy and their transformation of this into theology was unprecedented and did offer something that was popular. For a time, the persecution and alienation of all things Christian (and Jewish) continued, but during this time its influences were rather extraordinary. Triune gods, savior deities, etc., suddenly popped up, as did movements toward the creation of belief systems as integral to cultic practice. Eventually, the influence was so great that Julian attempted to create a pagan monotheistic theology and ensure its spread and survival. He failed. The legalization and imperial support for Christianity had left too strong a mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top