There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

However it is still fact that you already granted in the past that the authors of the Gospels where in general well informed about things happening in 1st century Judea.

So what changed? Why did you changed your mind?

They were informed about some things. But you need them to be flawless if you want to refute mythical Jesus. I granted that Jesus likely did exist. But you want him to be more than just a priest that was fomenting revolution (at least according to the Romans). I didn't change my mind. You merely appear to have misinterpreted what I said, Perhaps on purpose.

 

[leroy]

No, but empiricism is a method for determining what's out there and how it works in order to control outcomes as much as possible. It depends on reason applied to evidence. It is a posteriori knowledge of contingent truth.

Pure reason a priori knowledge of necessary like mathematical truth. It's not empiric because it doesn't derive from experience or evidence. A conscious, intelligent brain in a vat could generate a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. One of the chief arguments against a tri-omni god existing is pure reason. A world that contains gratuitous suffering does not contain an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly loving deity looking over it. But this is not the argument I've been referring to, which is based in the contradictions between Genesis and science, the latter being empirical knowledge.

I understand all that, but you are going beyond the scope of empiricism.

You can’t prove empirically that there is gratitious suffering and you can´t prove empirically that the number of prime numbers is infinite.

My point is that empiricism (as you defined before) is too restrictive

There are archeological artifacts that Philip and Alexander were historical kings and conquerors, although their stories may have been embellished. You can read more here: Letter from Macedonia: Owning Alexander We don't have that for Jesus. He appears on no coin or sculpture, for example:

View attachment 79322 View attachment 79324

Is it possible that these people never lived. Is it likely? No, it's very unlikely. That's the difference between an extraordinary, insufficiently evidenced claim and an ordinary, well evidenced claim, and why I tentatively accept one while rejecting the other.

True, but then what meaning would that fact have if the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist? Your point is conceded. It cannot be ruled out that some agent or some unconscious process somewhere resurrected somebody called Jesus. But why work to establish that? Your purpose is to promote the God of Abraham, who you believe resurrected Jesus, but I've already explained what the fate of that argument will be when you eventually get there. That god has been ruled out. So, you've gotten as far as this line of inquiry can go. Yes, a man might have been resurrected in the past and maybe even the central character of the Gospels, but we have no reason to believe that such a thing which may be impossible happened, and even if it did, it couldn't have been the god of the creation story, who is a fiction like the myth.

Art work, really? Is that your example of empirical evidence?

Fictional characters, could also be represented in art work………………….. Not to mention that we have literally millions of paintings, coins, toys, sculptures ornaments etc. of Jesus performing miracles, .

If you count art work as empirical evidence, (which you shouldn’t) then there are tons of evidence for the resurrection.



My ultimate point is that you can´t prove “empirically” most of the stuff in ancient history (nor mathematical truths, nor logic, nor moral truths nor events from your daily life etc)

Empiricism is too restrictive, and as an empiricist you should reject almost all ancient history

 

[leroy]

Why do you think that they need to be claimed? If you tried to reason rationally for once you would see that they had to use other sources. Your unreasonable demands tell us how you are not thinking this through.

That is why I started to ask you simple questions and since you do not appear to want to know what is probably why you ran away.

You said that there are ***other sources*** apart form Josephus that confirm the 6AD date

I am simply asking for these other sources.

Why is this demand unreasonable?

 

[leroy]

They were informed about some things. But you need them to be flawless if you want to refute mythical Jesus. I granted that Jesus likely did exist. But you want him to be more than just a priest that was fomenting revolution (at least according to the Romans). I didn't change my mind. You merely appear to have misinterpreted what I said, Perhaps on purpose.

Well I don have such high standards, why does the document have to be flawless?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand all that, but you are going beyond the scope of empiricism.

You can’t prove empirically that there is gratitious suffering and you can´t prove empirically that the number of prime numbers is infinite.

My point is that empiricism (as you defined before) is too restrictive


Art work, really? Is that your example of empirical evidence?

Fictional characters, could also be represented in art work………………….. Not to mention that we have literally millions of paintings, coins, toys, sculptures ornaments etc. of Jesus performing miracles, .

If you count art work as empirical evidence, (which you shouldn’t) then there are tons of evidence for the resurrection.



My ultimate point is that you can´t prove “empirically” most of the stuff in ancient history (nor mathematical truths, nor logic, nor moral truths nor events from your daily life etc)

Empiricism is too restrictive, and as an empiricist you should reject almost all ancient history

The problem isn't one of empiricism here. The problem is that your bar for standards of evidence is set incredibly low.

 

[leroy]

The problem isn't one of empiricism here. The problem is that your bar for standards of evidence is set incredibly low.

Why do you think is low?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said that there are ***other sources*** apart form Josephus that confirm the 6AD date

I am simply asking for these other sources.

Why is this demand unreasonable?

Why are they needed? Where do you think that historians got their claims about where Quirinius was and when from? They clearly did not get them from Josephus. You once again are not even thinking. You are merely reacting emotionally because the author of Luke was clearly wrong when it came to his Nativity myth. Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. There is no valid reason to believe that he was born elsewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I don have such high standards, why does the document have to be flawless?

If you want to claim that magic Jesus is real that puts an enormous burden of proof upon you. You should realize this. If you reject the stories of Muhammad riding a winged horse, then by the same standards you have to reject the magical parts of the Gospels. Your standards do not appear to be consistent and that makes your conclusions invalid.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

If you want to claim that magic Jesus is real that puts an enormous burden of proof upon you.

not really, are you denying the 2,000 years of history in the dating methods of scriptural writings? Are you honestly going to make the claim that the dead sea scrolls are a fabrication?

Even the secular world agrees that the isaiah scroll dated hundreds of year B.C using secular world methods of dating.

The point is, if you wish to pluck at straws only looking at certain trails of evidence, its easy to prove your own reality.

Let me give a real-world example...Lindy Chamberlin was judged guilty by a number of Australian courts...this convinced society she was guilty of killing her baby and that it wasn't possible for a dingo to have done it. Claims such as a baby's head were too big to fit in a dingo's mouth were supposedly proven, despite images of dingos with models of babies' heads in their mouths shown all across the media and attacks on even primary-school-age children where they were dragged by the dogs, .it must have been extremely embarrassing for those naysayers and nonbelievers when the new evidence presented to the Royal Commission completely quashed the verdicts of all previous courts due to overwhelming evidence. Subsequent hearings in later years eventually determined Lindy was innocent. So the interpretation of the evidence is different for different people at different times.

When we look at this topic, perhaps it might be prudent to try to explain why, if the bible is fake, how it could be so consistent given there was no internet, no postal service, not telecommunications, no way of creating such an enormous fabrication that still hasnt been proven to be fake. You harp on with statements such as Joesephus may have not been referring to Christ...citing a small number of references and yet ignoring thousands of scholarly works on His writings that completely dissagree with that claim about Josephus.

The reason why you dont find secular historical support for Christ should be quite obvious, many of those who have studied him in depth are not secular...they are Christian and thats because the evidence they found convinced them of this. I personally think its a bit of a stupid claim to state "there is no secular evidence for Jesus", thats a contradiction really, secularists are not interested in finding evidence in support of Christianity, they are doing their best to counter that claim...thats the point.

How do you explain the archeological findings that support the Bible narrative concerning well known individuals of the day? How do you explain things we have found that support Old Testament writings that date back hundreds of years prior to Christ (such as the cuneform tablet isaiah scroll etc).

Of course you would be foolish to completely deny the entire jewish culture and its entire history in all of this...there are millions of them who trace family trees, family stories, artefacts, writings...lots of historical information back thousands of years. Are you really going to make the claim an entire race of people and their history are a fabrication?

The reason Christians believe in Jesus is becase there is a wealth of evidence that exists in support of Him. Just like any police investigation, lots of evidence gathered, when taken by itself in small pieces outside of context, is of little use...however, when its all added together, that presents an overwhelming picture and many are convicted in criminal courts based on this model...a model you are at this very point denying btw. Now in Lindy Chamberliains case, the new evidence presented at the royal commission didnt change the course of history (ie that a baby dissapeared)

The iriony of this discussion is that one of the most well known scholars in support of Jesus existence is Dr Bart Erhman. He has extensively written on the historical account of Jesus Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. A caveat, i havent seen any referencing of his works here...perhaps its somewhere in the 104 pages of responses as i havent read through them all. Bart is an agnostic atheist

 

[Subduction Zone]

not really, are you denying the 2,000 years of history in the dating methods of scriptural writings? Are you honestly going to make the claim that the dead sea scrolls are a fabrication?

Even the secular world agrees that the isaiah scroll dated hundreds of year B.C using secular world methods of dating.

The point is, if you wish to pluck at straws only looking at certain trails of evidence, its easy to prove your own reality.

Let me give a real-world example...Lindy Chamberlin was judged guilty by a number of Australian courts...this convinced society she was guilty of killing her baby and that it wasn't possible for a dingo to have done it. Claims such as a baby's head were too big to fit in a dingo's mouth were supposedly proven, despite images of dingos with models of babies' heads in their mouths shown all across the media and attacks on even primary-school-age children where they were dragged by the dogs, .it must have been extremely embarrassing for those naysayers and nonbelievers when the new evidence presented to the Royal Commission completely quashed the verdicts of all previous courts due to overwhelming evidence. Subsequent hearings in later years eventually determined Lindy was innocent.

When we look at this topic, perhaps it might be prudent to try to explain why, if the bible is fake, how it could be so consistent given there was no internet, no postal service, not telecommunications, no way of creating such an enormous fabrication that still hasnt been proven to be fake. You harp on with statements such as Joesephus may have not been referring to Christ...citing a small number of references and yet ignoring thousands of scholarly works on His writings that completely dissagree with that claim about Josephus.

The reason why you dont find secular historical support for Christ should be quite obvious, many of those who have studied him in depth are not secular...they are Christian and thats because the evidence they found convinced them of this. I personally think its a bit of a stupid claim to state "there is no secular evidence for Jesus", thats a contradiction really, secularists are not interested in finding evidence in support of Christianity, they are doing their best to counter that claim...thats the point.

How do you explain the archeological findings that support the Bible narrative concerning well known individuals of the day? How do you explain things we have found that support Old Testament writings that date back hundreds of years prior to Christ (such as the cuneform tablet etc).

The reason Christians believe in Jesus is becase there is a wealth of evidence that exists in support of Him. Just like any police investigation, lots of evidence, when taken by itself, is of little use...however, when its all added together, that presents an overwhelming picture and many are convicted in criminal courts based on this model...a model you are at this very point denying btw.

What "2,000 years of history"? You appear to be mixing myths and history . The "Isaiah scroll" is not one work It is more than one and has a range of dates:

"The exact authors of 1QIsaa are unknown, as is the exact date of writing. Pieces of the scroll have been dated using both radiocarbon dating and palaeographic/scribal dating. These methods resulted in calibrated date ranges between 356 and 103 BCE and 150–100 BCE respectively.[5][6] This seemingly fits with the theory that the scroll(s) was a product of the Essenes, a mystic Jewish sect, first mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History,[7] and later by Josephus[8] and Philo Judaeus.[9]"

Isaiah Scroll - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And why use such extreme language? You are using a black and white fallacy. Parts of the Bible are historical and parts are mythical. Most of the Bible is probably younger than you think that it is.

And you need to be careful when you make claims about archaeological finds since many of them, or their lack, refute parts of the Bible too.

 

[leroy]

Why are they********(the other sources) *****needed?

You need the sources for two reasons

1 to show that your where correct all along when claiming that there are other sources

2 to show that Josephus was correct and Luke was wrong…….. at this point we have a draw, we have 2 authors reporting the same event, but a different date, anyone could be wrong……….. and additional source supporting the 6AD would break the draw in favor of Josephus

Where do you think that historians got their claims about where Quirinius was and when from?

Are you talking about modern historians? I am not sure, but íll bet they have information about Quirinius in various sources (including Josephus) ………… but josephus is the only ancient historian that dates the census at 6AD. You have no other source that corroborates that date.

You once again are not even thinking. You are merely reacting emotionally because the author of Luke was clearly wrong when it came to his Nativity myth. Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. There is no valid reason to believe that he was born elsewhere.

Weather if I am thinking or not, or weather if I am being emotional or not, is irrelevant…….. it is still a fact that:

1 you claimed that there are other sources

2 you havent provided such sources

You could say something like this: “Hey Leroy you are correct, I was wrong, there are no ***other sources*** but we still have many good reasons to think that Josephus is more likely to be correct than Luke, for reasons A, B and C…..”

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need the sources for two reasons

1 to show that your where correct all along when claiming that there are other sources

2 to show that Josephus was correct and Luke was wrong…….. at this point we have a draw, we have 2 authors reporting the same event, but a different date, anyone could be wrong……….. and additional source supporting the 6AD would break the draw in favor of Josephus




Are you talking about modern historians? I am not sure, but íll bet they have information about Quirinius in various sources (including Josephus) ………… but josephus is the only ancient historian that dates the census at 6AD. You have no other source that corroborates that date.


Weather if I am thinking or not, or weather if I am being emotional or not, is irrelevant…….. it is still a fact that:

1 you claimed that there are other sources

2 you havent provided such sources

You could say something like this: “Hey Leroy you are correct, I was wrong, there are no ***other sources*** but we still have many good reasons to think that Josephus is more likely to be correct than Luke, for reasons A, B and C…..”

Nope, your inability to reason when given sources does not mean others have to jump through your ridiculous hoops.

You have been refuted. I will probably just keep reminding you of that because you have once again disqualified yourself by not being able to reason.

You should not have ran away.

 

[leroy]

If you want to claim that magic Jesus is real that puts an enormous burden of proof upon you. You should realize this. If you reject the stories of Muhammad riding a winged horse, then by the same standards you have to reject the magical parts of the Gospels. Your standards do not appear to be consistent and that makes your conclusions invalid.

Do you have multiple indepdent sources for Muhammad riding a winged horse, that can be dated within 1 generation after the event?

Did the author reported a winged horse as if it where a real historical thing? Or was it part of a poem or some other symbolic literacy text?

If you show that this is the case for all 3 points, then yes, by my standards I would have to accept the winged horse, (unless I provide a good reason to deny such claim)

If you want to claim that magic Jesus is real that puts an enormous burden of proof upon you.

Form your comment it is obvious that you don’t really have problems with the historical evidence your problem is “magic”

If instead of resurrecting, Jesus would have done something that is consistent with your world

 

[leroy]

Nope, your inability to reason when given sources does not mean others have to jump through your ridiculous hoops.

You have been refuted. I will probably just keep reminding you of that because you have once again disqualified yourself by not being able to reason.

You should not have ran away.

Again the sources that you claim to have where not given, stop lying

 

[Audie]

The problem isn't one of empiricism here. The problem is that your bar for standards of evidence is set incredibly low.

Most would come up with higher ones
ifn they was on trial.

 

[leroy]

If you want to claim that magic Jesus is real that puts an enormous burden of proof upon you. You should realize this. If you reject the stories of Muhammad riding a winged horse, then by the same standards you have to reject the magical parts of the Gospels. Your standards do not appear to be consistent and that makes your conclusions invalid.

Apart from the new testament we have 5 Roman (non christian) first century sources that confirm the resurrection as a historical event, we even have letters written by Pontius Pilate describing the resurrection of Jesus . ………. What else do you whant?

 

[leroy]

Most would come up with higher ones
ifn they was on trial.

That is the issue,

The standards of a trial are “prove beyond reasonable doubt”

These standards are too high, nothing form ancient history can meet those standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have multiple indepdent sources for Muhammad riding a winged horse, that can be dated within 1 generation after the event?

Did the author reported a winged horse as if it where a real historical thing? Or was it part of a poem or some other symbolic literacy text?

If you show that this is the case for all 3 points, then yes, by my standards I would have to accept the winged horse, (unless I provide a good reason to deny such claim)



Form your comment it is obvious that you don’t really have problems with the historical evidence your problem is “magic”

If instead of resurrecting, Jesus would have done something that is consistent with your world

We are talking about your standards not mine.

Your confusion is epic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apart from the new testament we have 5 Roman (non christian) first century sources that confirm the resurrection as a historical event, we even have letters written by Pontius Pilate describing the resurrection of Jesus . ………. What else do you whant?

I seriously doubt if you have any of that. Your claim about Pilate is pure BS. Those would be regularly touted and posted. This is the first that we have heard this latest fantasy of yours.

 

[Audie]

not really, are you denying the 2,000 years of history in the dating methods of scriptural writings? Are you honestly going to make the claim that the dead sea scrolls are a fabrication?

Even the secular world agrees that the isaiah scroll dated hundreds of year B.C using secular world methods of dating.

The point is, if you wish to pluck at straws only looking at certain trails of evidence, its easy to prove your own reality.

Let me give a real-world example...Lindy Chamberlin was judged guilty by a number of Australian courts...this convinced society she was guilty of killing her baby and that it wasn't possible for a dingo to have done it. Claims such as a baby's head were too big to fit in a dingo's mouth were supposedly proven, despite images of dingos with models of babies' heads in their mouths shown all across the media and attacks on even primary-school-age children where they were dragged by the dogs, .it must have been extremely embarrassing for those naysayers and nonbelievers when the new evidence presented to the Royal Commission completely quashed the verdicts of all previous courts due to overwhelming evidence. Subsequent hearings in later years eventually determined Lindy was innocent.

When we look at this topic, perhaps it might be prudent to try to explain why, if the bible is fake, how it could be so consistent given there was no internet, no postal service, not telecommunications, no way of creating such an enormous fabrication that still hasnt been proven to be fake. You harp on with statements such as Joesephus may have not been referring to Christ...citing a small number of references and yet ignoring thousands of scholarly works on His writings that completely dissagree with that claim about Josephus.

The reason why you dont find secular historical support for Christ should be quite obvious, many of those who have studied him in depth are not secular...they are Christian and thats because the evidence they found convinced them of this. I personally think its a bit of a stupid claim to state "there is no secular evidence for Jesus", thats a contradiction really, secularists are not interested in finding evidence in support of Christianity, they are doing their best to counter that claim...thats the point.

How do you explain the archeological findings that support the Bible narrative concerning well known individuals of the day? How do you explain things we have found that support Old Testament writings that date back hundreds of years prior to Christ (such as the cuneform tablet etc).

Of course you would be foolish to completely deny the entire jewish culture and its entire history in all of this...there are millions of them who traces family trees, family stories, artefacts, writings...lots of historical information back thousands of years. Are you really going to make the claim and entire race of people and their history are a fabrication?

The reason Christians believe in Jesus is becase there is a wealth of evidence that exists in support of Him. Just like any police investigation, lots of evidence gathered, when taken by itself in small pieces outside of context, is of little use...however, when its all added together, that presents an overwhelming picture and many are convicted in criminal courts based on this model...a model you are at this very point denying btw.

How do you explain the fact that your "flood"
is disproved 10,000 times over?