There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

1st generation Christians were also saying Jesus battled Satan in the celestial realms and resurrected there, coming to earth later to tell his story (Ascension of Isaiah).
50% of 2nd century Christians were some sort of Gnostic Christians.
Resurrecting savior deities were involved in all other mystery religions were Hellenistic Greeks invavded. So it was a trend. Christianity was the last.


Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic


Justin Martyr said Jesus was like other deities in most ways (but the devil did that)

So a Hellenistic trend (salvation from a savior figure who resurrects and provides entry into an afterlife) is then actually used by a real God?
Even though that "real God" looks like all other Near Eastern Gods early on and even uses Mesopotamian myth to create the first books?
And the two nations who occupied Judea just happen to already have every single thing added on to Judaism in their religion and caused the Christian myths. But despite all that its' still all true.
Sure. And gold plates exist under a hill in NY with Egyptain writing created by angel Moroni for Joe Smith.

Resurrecting saviors IS A TREND that developed in that region over many years. The Greeks made it into a very definitive theology but before them the first resurrecting God was Inanna. Not a Hellenistic savior or a Persian world saving messiah (virgin born from a woman impregnated by the supreme God) but a Sumerian resurrection, in 3 days as well.


Inanna is the earliest known resurrected god. For her, a clear-cut death-and-resurrection tale exists on clay tablets inscribed in Sumeria over a thousand years before Christianity, plainly describing her humiliation, trial, execution, and crucifixion, and her resurrection three days later. After she is stripped naked and judgment is pronounced against her, Inanna is “turned into a corpse” and “the corpse was hung from a nail” and “after three days and three nights” her assistants ask for her corpse and resurrect her (by feeding her the “water” and “food” of life), and “Inanna arose” according to what had been her plan all along, because she knew her father “would surely bring me back to life,” exactly as transpires in the story (quotations are from the tablets, adapting the translation of Samuel Noah Kramer in History Begins at Sumer). This cult continued to be practiced into the Christian period, Tyre being a major center of her worship. By then, there is some evidence her resurrection tale was shifted to her consort Tammuz, one of several resurrected deities the Greeks called Adonis."

And what is your theory?

Paul invented a God that resurrected based on a previous myths , then he worshiped that God and even died for this God that he himself invented?

 

[Twilight Hue]

View attachment 79257
You have ignored the evidence. He was just a Jewish man- noit anyone especially important. But there IS evidence- if yolu desire to LOOK for it~!

Givin you had not provided said evidence , I take there actually isn't any whatsoever.

Plenty for early Christians, none for Jesus.

 

[leroy]

Nope. You are still making false accusations. That is never a wise tactic because now you have taken on the burden of proof. You do tend to do this quite often.

Then why do you think that the quote is misleading?

 

[leroy]

You mean why would the author of Luke do that. True believers are not above padding a story. Look at the incredible dishonesty that we see here when it comes to people dealing with their religious beliefs. Why do you think that the author of Luke was any different? The only problem is with the incredibly poor job that he did of it.

Really? That is the best you can do to support the claim than Luke made it up?................. your argument basically is “Religious people here, are dishonest, so why would Luke be different”….. do you honestly think that your argument is valid?

And why do you keep pointing to only the author of Luke and Josephus? This sort of arguing by you supports my claim. You have to know by now that Josephus is not the only Roman source that shows the nativity story in Luke to be a myth.

Because those are the only 2 primary sources (Josephus and Luke) that provide a date for the census. You keep saying that there are other sources………… but you failed to quote them

You have to know by now that Josephus is not the only Roman source that shows the nativity story in Luke to be a myth.

You might have 100 sources that confirm that the nativity story is false, but none of them supports Josephus and the date of the census that he suggests.

 

[leroy]

How does that argue against the claim of resurrection being a fiction added years after Christ's death?

The fact that first generation Christians belived in the resurection make that ¨theory” unlikely ………. Why because that would imply that the fiction was added by the same people who were willing to die for their believe in the resurrection.

You are basically saying that early Christians died in the name of a lie that they themselves invented. (which is unlikely)

(yes sometimes people die in the name of a lie, but people never die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented)

There are other explanations possible and in fact more likely than that a resurrection occurred. We know that the Gospel writers weren't independent sources. Mark informed Matthew and Luke, who informed John. And all were informed by Paul's epistles. Paul probably was the source of the addition. He says that Jesus was raised in I Corinthians, which is dated to about 50-55 CE. The Gospels all came later. And the story of the risen god or demigod is older than all of them.

Well how do you know that resurrections are less likely than the alternative that you present?

The probability of the resurrection is determined by:

2 The probability that God Excist (say 50%)

2 + the probability that given the existence of God, miracles would occur every once in a while (say 90%)

3 + given miracles, the probability that the specific miracle of a resurrection occurred (say 80%)

50%*90%*80% = 36%

So the intrinsic probability of a resurrection is 36%..................do you have any reason to think that any of these values is much smaller than what I suggest? If not, you should be ok with the 36% that I suggest.

Your alternative

1 Paul Lied and died for the name of a Lie that he invented (less that 1% I would suggest)

2 the authors of the gospels for some reason saw Paul’s Epistoles and decided to build upon that lie (less than 1%)

3 the early church flourished, as a result of that sea of lies (less than 1%)

1%*1%*1% = 0.0000001%

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why do you think that the quote is misleading?

Because it sounds as unlikely to be accurate as if I were to use the same technique to prove that there is no God.

There is no valid excuse for such a short truncated quote today. When one is quoting someone that disagrees with you one needs to go out of one's way to show that one is being accurate. You unfortunately seem to support this sort of lying.


I made you a more than a reasonable offer to you. Why didn't you accept it?

 

[leroy]

Why do you think those are independent sources?

Because they didn’t copied from each other, nor form a common source.

Paul only claims to have seen some light and heard a phantom voice claiming to be Jesus. I don't know why you consider that to be confirmation of any resurrection of a dead person. I mean, I had a vivid dream just last night that my grandmother had come to visit me. Does that convince you that my grandmother has been resurrected from the dead and came to speak with me? I actually saw her AND heard her voice.

Well that is the point, Paul and the apostles claimed to have seen a bodily resurrection……. (unlike you and your grandmother)

If they would have had –“just a dream” they would have claimed that they saw Jesus in a “divine Dream” that would have been a valid miracle for them too.

If you have the ability to tell the difference between a dream and the real world, why wouldn’t Paul and the apostles have the same ability?

To follow the analogy.

1 Imagine that not only you but your family and neighbors also saw your grandmother entering to your house.

2 you and your neighbors talk to her, touched her ate with her etc.

3 then you go to visit her tomb, and you find out that the tomb is empty

4 your grandmother tells you that she resurrected, that she was send by God for some reason.

Wouldn’t that be awesome evidence for a resurrection?

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts of anything (aka hearsay)

Just curios, how do you know that the authors of the Gospels where not witnesses?

and they're not all independent sources, given that they're all a part of the exact same source - The Bible.

The bible didn’t exist, when the gospels and Paul´s epistles where written

Not to mention the fact that all of the stories differ, to varying degrees, so not exactly "the exact same lie."

My point is that of all the lies and miracles that someone could have invented, it is strage that both Mark and Paul invented the same lie (resurection)

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Just curios, how do you know that the authors of the Gospels where not witnesses?

Aren't they verified to be written after the name of the Author of the book, or at least some or most of them?

My point is that of all the lies and miracles that someone could have invented, it is strage that both Mark and Paul invented the same lie (resurection)

Pretty sure there were arguments between the apostles as to how the gospel should be told/spread. Namely involving Paul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they didn’t copied from each other, nor form a common source.

The gospels of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark quite a bit and all three disagree with each other to an extent. In fact so much so that one cannot claim that they are "different viewpoints. They are simply different stories..

Well that is the point, Paul and the apostles claimed to have seen a bodily resurrection……. (unlike you and your grandmother)

Nope, we have been over this, Paul only talked about spiritual resurrections whenever he describes them. You never supported your claim that Paul believed in a physical one.

If they would have had –“just a dream” they would have claimed that they saw Jesus in a “divine Dream” that would have been a valid miracle for them too.

If you have the ability to tell the difference between a dream and the real world, why wouldn’t Paul and the apostles have the same ability?

To follow the analogy.

1 Imagine that not only you but your family and neighbors also saw your grandmother entering to your house.

2 you and your neighbors talk to her, touched her ate with her etc.

3 then you go to visit her tomb, and you find out that the tomb is empty

4 your grandmother tells you that she resurrected, that she was send by God for some reason.

Wouldn’t that be awesome evidence for a resurrection?

You should never have mentioned the tomb. The stories are so different that it does not look as if they are describing the same event. John does not even agree with the day.

Just curios, how do you know that the authors of the Gospels where not witnesses?

By the way that they wrote. By when they were written. By all sorts of reasons. Not one of them claims to be an eyewitness, the Gospel of Luke in fact states that it was not an eyewitness account. How could you not understand that?

The bible didn’t exist, when the gospels and Paul´s epistles where written


My point is that of all the lies and miracles that someone could have invented, it is strage that both Mark and Paul invented the same lie (resurection)

But they do not have the same miracles. Mark does not even have a clear resurrection in the original ending. Wait, are you now saying that Mark has only a spiritual resurrection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? That is the best you can do to support the claim than Luke made it up?................. your argument basically is “Religious people here, are dishonest, so why would Luke be different”….. do you honestly think that your argument is valid?

This is where you look extremely dishonest. Or else you have not been following the conversation. Did you forget all of the endless problems with the myth in Luke?

Because those are the only 2 primary sources (Josephus and Luke) that provide a date for the census. You keep saying that there are other sources………… but you failed to quote them

No they are not. At least not to the census. You keep conveniently forgetting why there would not have been a census before Quirinius took over. How could you not understand that?

You might have 100 sources that confirm that the nativity story is false, but none of them supports Josephus and the date of the census that he suggests.

What? Oh come on now. If you can't be serious we cannot have a discussion.

 

[lukethethird]

Givin you had not provided said evidence , I take there actually isn't any whatsoever.

Plenty for early Christians, none for Jesus.

There never is any provided, just a lot of hand waving.

 

[Faithofchristian]

My question was asking for Biblical quotes referencing the resurrection of Jesus.

I answered that question..
Your called into question by your own question.
You first have to provide your evidence to back up what your asking..

It's not up to me or anyone else..
To answer your question.
that you have no evidence of your own..to back up what your asking first.
Are you always in the habit of asking people for evidence that you, yourself have no evidence to back up what your asking first.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There's plenty of evidence proof for the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
If you know where to look .
So where's your evidence that the historical of Jesus Christ did not happened..
So your called into question by your own question.
You first must have evidence to back up what your saying.

Without any evidence of your own..
Your question is invalid. Void.
And meaningless..

 

[Faithofchristian]

It would depend on the situation and the lie. But it's irrelevant what I personally would do.

Dying for a lie doesn't necessarily mean one knows it's a lie, by the way. Nine hundred people in Jonestown poisoned themselves and their children because they thought Jim Jones was the Messiah. According to your line of logic here. that would make Jim Jones the Messiah. Do you think Jim Jones is the Messiah because all those people killed themselves and their children for him?

Nineteen adult men organized an horrific attack against the US in 2001, hijacking and flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people. They all thought that would get them a ticket to heaven. So, they just be in Heaven right now, right? Because people don't die for lies?

You're starting to get it now, right?

 

[Faithofchristian]

It would depend on the situation and the lie. But it's irrelevant what I personally would do.

Dying for a lie doesn't necessarily mean one knows it's a lie, by the way. Nine hundred people in Jonestown poisoned themselves and their children because they thought Jim Jones was the Messiah. According to your line of logic here. that would make Jim Jones the Messiah. Do you think Jim Jones is the Messiah because all those people killed themselves and their children for him?

Nineteen adult men organized an horrific attack against the US in 2001, hijacking and flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people. They all thought that would get them a ticket to heaven. So, they just be in Heaven right now, right? Because people don't die for lies?

You're starting to get it now, right?

Don't even go there.
I gave you the situation.

The situation is about the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.

If someone held a knife to your throat, you either give up the lie or you die.
Now would you die for a lie, knowing it's a lie.

Human nature tells us..no one would die for a lie..knowing it's a lie.
Neither would those people back a little over 2000 years ago.
Christians were cast into the Roman coliseum among wild animals.. because they would not confess what they were saying to be a lie..
So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ outside of the bible.

Now inside of the bible..
All those people who followed witnessing hearing, seeing Jesus Christ..
A lot of those people died..all because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.
So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ inside the Bible and outside of the bible..

 

[Faithofchristian]

If someone held a knife to your throat and told you to give up "the lie" or die, but you weren't lying... Would you then lie to save your skin? Would you denounce God or join the martyrs?

Yes I sure would ..knowing it wasn't a lie but the truth..
Which you have no understanding of..why wouldn't a person denounce the truth as a lie just to save themselves..
There is a difference.
Knowing something is a lie and denouncing it
that its nothing more than a lie..

But knowing it's the absolute truth.
Why should I not stand up for truth even to point of death.
There have been many people sent to their graves for the truth which they held..
Just like those Christians that were put to death in the Roman Colosseum among wild animals.
a little over 2000 years ago.

All because they would not denounce the truth being a lie.
So even to the point of death they would not denounce the truth being a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's plenty of evidence proof for the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
If you know where to look .
So where's your evidence that the historical of Jesus Christ did not happened..
So your called into question by your own question.
You first must have evidence to back up what your saying.

Without any evidence of your own..
Your question is invalid. Void.
And meaningless..

There really is not. You may have a faulty concept of evidence.

There is some. But it is rather weak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't even go there.
I gave you the situation.

The situation is about the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.

If someone held a knife to your throat, you either give up the lie or you die.
Now would you die for a lie, knowing it's a lie.

Human nature tells us..no one would die for a lie..knowing it's a lie.
Neither would those people back a little over 2000 years ago.
Christians were cast into the Roman coliseum among wild animals.. because they would not confess what they were saying to be a lie..
So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ outside of the bible.

Now inside of the bible..
All those people who followed witnessing hearing, seeing Jesus Christ..
A lot of those people died..all because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.
So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ inside the Bible and outside of the bible..

Once again your information about early Christians that were punished for being Christians is not factual. And even if true it would not be evidence. That only tells you of their beliefs. It says nothing about whether those beliefs were based upon history or fantasy.

 

[joelr]

I'm sourcing revelation from celestial beings who know whereof they speak.

How do you demonstrate they are writings from a celestial being? What information do they give that is beyond our current science and mathematics. What clear and unquestionable prophecies do they give? Did they give a string of digits in pi that we have not yet calculated up to?
Do they say when we will see the light from a distant supernova that is currently on the way?
Did they solve the Riemann Hypothesis or unify gravity with quantum mechanics. How about a cure for cancer?

what do they give that a human could not possibly make up?

OR, are your standards of evidence ridiculously so low that they give nothing of the sort and you just believe it because it sounds good?

 

[joelr]

Paul admitted to lying to spread his gospel. He said

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

I know, it's too easy, there are always silly apologetics for that stuff. Like.....


"

What does Romans 3:7 mean?​

Paul returns again to the question raised in verse 5, somewhat re-phrasing it, using a more specific example. This challenge strikes at Paul's argument about God's judgment on human sinfulness. The basic claim is this: If telling a lie further displays God's truthfulness, leading to His glory, why should He condemn me for that lie? Paul has previously said that our sin does indeed result in proving God's righteous sinlessness. So if our sin brings glory to Him, in a sense, should He really condemn us for it?"