There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

But you cant quote the alleged wrong claim , can you?

Silky games. Everyone knows when you have lost.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not buying into that..
It's amazing how people come up with things
when confronted with the truth.
I gave the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
.
Outside of the bible and inside the Bible.
Outside of the bible.
The truth lays in the
Roman colosseum.
People were put to death because they would not denounce the truth they held about seeing and hearing for themselves Jesus Christ.

Then there's those thousand of people who followed Jesus Christ while he was here on earth..that were put to death, because they would not denounce the truth about Jesus Christ...
There's lays the Historical evidence inside the Bible.

Covering your ears and repeating a logical fallacy doesn't make your claims any truer.

 

[MikeDwight]

Mary was made the Mother of God. "The Christian saints have their roots in the pagan (Roman) religion celebrated before the transition to Christianity"

Nine Saints That Italians Pray To​

the Italian cult of the saints and will look at how important saints are to the Italian culture today.
The different pagan gods of the Roman religion each had their own specialty, something specific that they were thought to protect, and so do the Christian saints. at least 1726 saints were canonized.

Do Italians notice if you remove Jesus?
theos (Θεός, 'god') =Theology
Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning 'discourse on God' around 380 BC by Plato in The Republic. Theus = latin Deus = Greek Zeus. Zeus is still the name of God in Greek , in Greek Orthodox Church usage liturgy. In Acts 17 a poetry quoted "Offspring of God" was a poetry concerning Zeus, the Apostle Paul states in Acts 17 your own poets have said you are the offspring of Zeus and that you worship an Unknown God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again this historian doesn't claim to have **other sources** if you think I am wrong, the quote his words where he afirms the opposite.

It is sad that that you dont have the intelectual honesty to admit your mistake

Do you understand that Josephus was a historian of Jewish interactions with Rome?

 

[leroy]

Make America Great Again.
They are Trump supporters.

The MAGAs have been saying Trump actually won the last election. In actuality, he lost the last election.
MAGAs are/were so thoroughly convinced that Trump actually won the last election that they staged a coup where they stormed the Capitol building to stop the certification of the vote. Perhaps you remember that?

They can honestly think their claims are true until the cows come home. That doesn't make their claims true. In fact, their claims are patently and demonstrably false. And yet they still believe them. So, according to the line of logic you're trying to sell us here, they can't possibly be wrong. We now have to believe their story, because they are so thoroughly convinced of it. They couldn't possibly be lying about their claims, because that would cause them embarrassment. Do you see how silly that sounds in a different context?

You are taking my comments out of context, the specific point that MAGAS show is that they honestly think that trump won the election. (Assuming that they had nothing to win and everything to lose by lying)

This shows that MAGAS saw evidence that they themselves found conversing. Which implies that they didn’t faked the evidence,

This is analogous to the claim that the apostles, honestly thought that “they saw something” that they interpreted as evidence for the resurrection. ……… this by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred, but it shows that they where not lying. They didn’t made the stuff up.

You failed to see that this is a cumulative case, no argument by itself shows that the resurrection occurred,

1 The fact that Jesus Died and was buried by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

2 The empty tom by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

3 the fact that the apostoels claimed to have seen Jesus risen after he died. by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred. (they saw him multiple times, in multiple circumstances, and even within groups of people)

4 the fact that the apostles had no reason to lie, and had everything to lose and nothing to win by promoting the resurrection, by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

5 the fact that Paul and James converted by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

6 the fact that the existence of a god is possible _(and not very unlikely) by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

7 the act that early Christianity rose and flusished after the death of Jesus by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

But the combination of these facts do provide a powerful case in favor of the resurrection.

So if this conversation is going to continue, I will like you to adopt one of these 2 positions

1 even grating these facts, there isn’t a case for the resurrection

2 I don’t grant some of these alleges facts (start with the one that you think is less likely to be true.})

Yours is not a 50/50 proposition here, because you're claim isn't "some god exists." Your claim is that a very specific version of god exists, a god that comes with all kinds of conditions, caveats and baggage - which tends to drag the probability down quite a bit.

I haven't ever seen any good evidence that convinces me that god(s) exist.

I don't know the probability for the god you think exists but given all the conditions that come with it, it seems vanishingly small.

For the purpose of this conversation, my claim is that some god might exist. (intrinsic probability of 50% or somethign not too far from that 50% point)

If you disagree with the 50% please explain why

 

[leroy]

Do you understand that Josephus was a historian of Jewish interactions with Rome?

Yes and so what? it is still a fact that you don’t have any other source for the 6AD date, as you previously claimed.

Even if you have 1000 reasons for why Josephus is more reliable than Luke, it will still be true that you were wrong in affirming that there are ***other sources***

After you admit that you don’t have ******other sources***** we can move to a different topic.

 

[leroy]

Well, as I said, the person labelled "Luke" tells us that he's telling us a hearsay story.
The rest are written in the third person.

even ignorign the flaw of that argment, it still doesnt implly that there where not witnessess.

But the better question is, since we don't know who they are, why are you claiming that they are eyewitnesses?

I don’t claim that they were witnesses, (who knows) you are the one who made de affirmation that they were not witnesses.

My claim is that they were well informed, so ether they were witnesses or they had access to good sources………… we know this because most of the historical verifiable information is true.

I am questioning your claims and how you claim to know them.

I am lost, will you tell me exactly what claim(s) are you talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and so what? it is still a fact that you don’t have any other source for the 6AD date, as you previously claimed.

Even if you have 1000 reasons for why Josephus is more reliable than Luke, it will still be true that you were wrong in affirming that there are ***other sources***

After you admit that you don’t have ******other sources***** we can move to a different topic.

Nope. You are once again not reasoning rationally or logically.

Do you understand that Josephus was not the only Roman historian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

even ignorign the flaw of that argment, it still doesnt implly that there where not witnessess.

Please, you don't get to claim flaws in arguments. When it comes to the gospels there is no evidence of witnesses. You do not seem to understand that the way that they were written indicates that they are not based on witnesses.

I don’t claim that they were witnesses, (who knows) you are the one who made de affirmation that they were not witnesses.

My claim is that they were well informed, so ether they were witnesses or they had access to good sources………… we know this because most of the historical verifiable information is true.

In that case, so what? It seems that you want to go beyond that. They were well informed about the believers in the Jesus myth. How does that help you?

 

[leroy]

No, no, they aren't arbirtary and unjustified - quite the opposite. They are well established rules for proper citation.
You've provided a "quotation" that is a red flag to anyone familiar with quote mining and the use of proper citation. There is a reason you don't often come upon such types of quotes in academic papers, because it's recognized as a red flag. These are the plain old boring standards that have been around for a long, long time.

What you are saying is paranoiac and ridiculous; quotes with ellipses are pretty common in scientific papers, authors remove the portions of the article that seem irrelevant. …….. you have no basis for affirming that the authors of all these sites are being misleading.

 

[leroy]

Do you understand that Josephus was not the only Roman historian?

Sure, but he is the only roman historian that we know of, that dates the census,

 

[leroy]

Please, you don't get to claim flaws in arguments. When it comes to the gospels there is no evidence of witnesses. You do not seem to understand that the way that they were written indicates that they are not based on witnesses.

In that case, so what? It seems that you want to go beyond that. They were well informed about the believers in the Jesus myth. How does that help you?

"How does that help you?"

Documents that where written by well informed people are more likely to be realible than documents written by people that where not well informed.

The fact that they were well informed, show that *very probably* they knew who Jesus the disciples where,. What they did, what they saw, what they believed, etc.

So **assuming** that they where to lying nor making things up, it follows that the information in the gospels is mostly true. (unless you have good positive reasons to reject specific claims)

The implication is that, **if** you have good positive reasons to reject miracles, then you are free to reject all the supernatural parts of the gospels. (which is the same thing you would do with Josephus)..........


This would put the gosples at the same level that you would put Josephus.

 

[leroy]

Perhaps you get the point anyway though?

Then why did you provide it?

Because @Subduction Zone asked me to provide it

A brief summery

1 I claimed that the creed in Corinthians is dated at 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

2 asked to provide a source from a non-Christian scholar that agrees with that claim

3 I provided that quote



In my opinion, it is stupid to demand for a quote form a non Christian scholar, arguments stand or fall based on their merits, not based on the religious world view of the person making the argument. .. You will never see me in this forum asking an atheist for a Christian scholar that supports his view. Because I understand the flaws in that request.

But I decided to ignore all that, and I simply shared the quote.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like the boys of 911, deluded into
thinking a martyrs death buys status in
the afterlife.
And fearing eternal torment if they renounced
their faith.

This is supposed to be a selling point for
this religion?

Maybe that was not the reason. God knows all our reasoning. He is the one to decide who will be resurrected and who will not be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but he is the only roman historian that we know of, that dates the census,

Incorrect, that is an unjustified claim, and is refuted by several factors that we have gone over. Have you forgotten them already? I need a yes or a no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because @Subduction Zone asked me to provide it

A brief summery

1 I claimed that the creed in Corinthians is dated at 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

2 asked to provide a source from a non-Christian scholar that agrees with that claim

3 I provided that quote



In my opinion, it is stupid to demand for a quote form a non Christian scholar, arguments stand or fall based on their merits, not based on the religious world view of the person making the argument. .. You will never see me in this forum asking an atheist for a Christian scholar that supports his view. Because I understand the flaws in that request.

But I decided to ignore all that, and I simply shared the quote.

And that source was shown not to be reliable. The quote had all of the signs of being a quote mine. Since it cannot be verified, and the source it came from had a clear agenda it is of no use in a debate. I was not the only one to point this out to you. That was a failure on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Documents that where written by well informed people are more likely to be realible than documents written by people that where not well informed.

The fact that they were well informed, show that *very probably* they knew who Jesus the disciples where,. What they did, what they saw, what they believed, etc.

So **assuming** that they where to lying nor making things up, it follows that the information in the gospels is mostly true. (unless you have good positive reasons to reject specific claims)

The implication is that, **if** you have good positive reasons to reject miracles, then you are free to reject all the supernatural parts of the gospels. (which is the same thing you would do with Josephus)..........


This would put the gosples at the same level that you would put Josephus.

Not if they have a clear agenda. That changes everything. Documents from a less well informed, but honest source are far more reliable, and we know that the authors of the gospels were not exactly honest. Okay, you probably do not know this because you are still deep in denial.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are taking my comments out of context, the specific point that MAGAS show is that they honestly think that trump won the election. (Assuming that they had nothing to win and everything to lose by lying)

Am I? How so? I've quoted every single one of your posts, word for word. I don't cut parts out like you do. Perhaps you're projecting?

This shows that MAGAS saw evidence that they themselves found conversing. Which implies that they didn’t faked the evidence,

There was no evidence. That's the thing about it.
Several people successfully convinced them that there was evidence, namely Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, among others.

This is analogous to the claim that the apostles, honestly thought that “they saw something” that they interpreted as evidence for the resurrection. ……… this by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred, but it shows that they where not lying. They didn’t made the stuff up.

Yep, and it shows that people very sincerely believe untrue things all the time. It shows that the number of people that believe a thing, and how strongly they believe a thing, has no bearing on the veracity of the claim.

I've been trying to tell you for pages and pages now, that people can be mistaken about the things they believe. I've never asserted that the Bible writers are outright lying, though they could be, we can't know. But human beings can be, and often are, mistaken about the things they believe.

You failed to see that this is a cumulative case, no argument by itself shows that the resurrection occurred,

The collective points don't show that a resurrection occurred either.

1 The fact that Jesus Died and was buried by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

Not a verifiable fact. Though there probably was some guy named Jesus that was crucified once upon a time.

2 The empty tom by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

Sure.

3 the fact that the apostoels claimed to have seen Jesus risen after he died. by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred. (they saw him multiple times, in multiple circumstances, and even within groups of people)

Still waiting on those resurrection quotes.

We've got what, one guy claiming to have seen some light and heard a voice? Do we have testimony from those "groups of people?"

4 the fact that the apostles had no reason to lie, and had everything to lose and nothing to win by promoting the resurrection, by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

Not a fact and I don't know where you've come up with this. They had many reasons to lie. They had an agenda.

Also, as just discussed, people can spread false beliefs they actually think are true, even when they aren't. Happens all the time.

5 the fact that Paul and James converted by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

It doesn't show anything at all. Any more than my uncle converting to evangelicalism at age 44 shows anything at all.

6 the fact that the existence of a god is possible _(and not very unlikely) by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

You've never determined this. Not a fact.

7 the act that early Christianity rose and flusished after the death of Jesus by itself doesn’t show that the resurrection occurred.

Christianity was spread by force and by missionaries. This doesn't demonstrate anything about the truth of the claims.

But the combination of these facts do provide a powerful case in favor of the resurrection.

Nah. You just really, really want it to.

So if this conversation is going to continue, I will like you to adopt one of these 2 positions

1 even grating these facts, there isn’t a case for the resurrection

2 I don’t grant some of these alleges facts (start with the one that you think is less likely to be true.})

Most of these aren't facts. They are elements of a story, written in an old book. Also, it doesn't take into account at all, the actual fact that people can and do believe very strongly in things that aren't true, all the time.

For the purpose of this conversation, my claim is that some god might exist. (intrinsic probability of 50% or somethign not too far from that 50% point)

If you disagree with the 50% please explain why

Your claim is definitely not just "some god exists." You are positing the existence of a very, very specific god with very, very specific characteristics and history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

even ignorign the flaw of that argment,

What "flaw of the argument?"

it still doesnt implly that there where not witnessess.

It shows that Luke isn't a witness. It shows you can't cite Luke as a witness.

I don’t claim that they were witnesses, (who knows) you are the one who made de affirmation that they were not witnesses.

Pretty sure you claimed there were witnesses.

My claim is that they were well informed,

And your claim fails because you cannot demonstrate that.

so ether they were witnesses or they had access to good sources…………

Two very different things.

we know this because most of the historical verifiable information is true.

What locations and some names? Big deal. You can find that in a Spiderman comic.

I am lost, will you tell me exactly what claim(s) are you talking about?

That's for sure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you are saying is paranoiac and ridiculous; quotes with ellipses are pretty common in scientific papers, authors remove the portions of the article that seem irrelevant. …….. you have no basis for affirming that the authors of all these sites are being misleading.

It's really not. Spend some time in academia sometime and you'll get it, since you don't want to believe me.