There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible went through a homogenization process. It is only one source.

That is a good point too.

The majority of historians may agree that Christ existed, but the question remains in contention.

Since believers can believe regardless, I am not ever sure why they worry so.

 

[leroy]

You lost the debate. You just lost it again by showing that you have not been following along.

What happened? You where cornered by my arguments again?

You made the claim that the New Testament (paul+gosples) is as bad as Homer as a source…………I showed that you where wrong

Therefore I won

 

[leroy]

The Bible went through a homogenization process. It is only one source.

Only in your own personal language that you just invented, where you invented your definition for “1 source”

But regardless of what words you want to use…….. it is still probably true that we have many different contemporary authors that didn’t copied from each other, that reported the same event.

(you don’t have that for the illiad)

Weather if you whant to call this “independent “sources or invent a new word is irrelevant. The fact remains.

 

[leroy]

I believe that Christ existed, obviously. But that isn't evidence that he did exist. Corroboration of the existence of Christ outside the Bible remains arguable and describing dissenting views as the work of the crazy in no way a valid refutation of that dissent.

There are two events in the story of Christ that many historians site as substantial to supporting acceptance of Christ's existence over the view as a figure of mythology. While many historians accept that Christ existed, there remains argument around that and that acceptance is based on far more than simply accepting two accounts.

Historical method - Wikipedia

This appears to be just your means to make existence of Christ equivalent to the claim of miracle and thus establish miracles as happening on those coattails. The claim of miracle remains a highly contested and discussed issue that has not been established as a fact.

Corroboration of the existence of Christ outside the Bible remains arguable

False and irrelevant.

The documents that later became, “the bible” (new testament) where written by multiple contemporary authors, having multiple contemporary documents usually is more than enough to establish a historical fact.

Documents from outside the bible (josephus, tacitus, Pliny the Younger Clement apocrifal gosples etc. count as a bonus………. It is good to have them, but we don’t need them.

 

[leroy]

No, it's stories handed down and is a legend. Jesus also had supper with a bunch of people. Supper is common. But that story has evidence that Mark made it up based on a vision Paul claimed to have had from Jesus.

That is not the view of the majority of scholars. Most of them accept that Jesus existed and all the events that are reported in 2 or more sources (say Paul and Mark) are accepted as probable historical facts.

The only exception are those claims that have theological implications that atheist don’t like.

 

[leroy]

Subduction Zone said:
The Bible went through a homogenization process. It is only one source.

That is a good point too.

I have no idea what homogenization means in this context, but the original texts where not edited.

The only thing that happened is that originally there where like 100 docuemnts

Then (300 years after Jesus died) some guys form Rome (the church fathers) selected 20 or so books, put them together under the same cover and called them “the new testament”

The remaining 80 books are still there for anyone to study.

This process doesn’t affect the validity nor the accuracy of any of the documents.

This process might cause some theological issues, but from the point of view of history, this process of “selection” doesn’t affect anything


assigning the label of "canonical" and "non canonical" is irrelevant and doesnt affect the historicity of the documents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What happened? You where cornered by my arguments again?

You made the claim that the New Testament (paul+gosples) is as bad as Homer as a source…………I showed that you where wrong

Therefore I won

LOL!! What is wrong with you? Where did I make that claim? I could have but I doubt it. You never showed anyone tobe wrong.

I need to remind you that logic is missing from your toolbox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone said:
The Bible went through a homogenization process. It is only one source.

I have no idea what homogenization means in this context, but the original texts where not edited.

The only thing that happened is that originally there where like 100 docuemnts

Then (300 years after Jesus died) some guys form Rome (the church fathers) selected 20 or so books, put them together under the same cover and called them “the new testament”

The remaining 80 books are still there for anyone to study.

This process doesn’t affect the validity nor the accuracy of any of the documents.

This process might cause some theological issues, but from the point of view of history, this process of “selection” doesn’t affect anything


assigning the label of "canonical" and "non canonical" is irrelevant and doesnt affect the historicity of the documents.

Why don't you know that? This is a 'you' problem. I can't make you think.

 

[leroy]

LOL!! What is wrong with you? Where did I make that claim? I could have but I doubt it. You never showed anyone tobe wrong.

I need to remind you that logic is missing from your toolbox.

Sorry, somebody hacked your account and posted this under your name
"And that standard is applied to all such stories. Not just the Bible. If you are going to use that nonsense to argue for the God of the Bible then the Odyssey and the Iliad are proof of Greek Gods."

The point that I was making is that the bible (paul gospels etc.) are better than the illiad as a source……….. therefore your comparison fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, somebody hacked your account and posted this under your name
"And that standard is applied to all such stories. Not just the Bible. If you are going to use that nonsense to argue for the God of the Bible then the Odyssey and the Iliad are proof of Greek Gods."

The point that I was making is that the bible (paul gospels etc.) are better than the illiad as a source……….. therefore your comparison fails.

Why didn't you admit that you did not understand the refutation? Making a false claim about it does not help you. You ignored the word "if".

 

[leroy]

Why don't you know that? This is a 'you' problem. I can't make you think.

Because, you just invented a new language, with new words and definitions,

I don’t speak nor understand that new language.

I have no idea what you personally mean by homogenization..........is that a crime? why dont you define your term?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because, you just invented a new language, with new words and definitions,

I don’t speak nor understand that new language.

I have no idea what you personally mean by homogenization..........is that a crime? why dont you define your term?

No, it is standard English. Is English a second language for you?

 

[leroy]

No, it is standard English. Is English a second language for you?

No, it is standard English. Is English a second language for you?

1. homogenization
   1.......................................................................
   a process by which the fat droplets from milk are emulsified and the cream does not separate.
   "after homogenization and pasteurization, milk travels to one of six storage tanks"
   
   • BIOLOGY
     preparation of a suspension of cell constituents from tissue by physical treatment in a liquid.
     "the mechanical homogenization of leaf tissue"
2. .
3. the process of making things uniform or similar.
   "the fear of cultural homogenization is a barrier to some multinational businesses"
   ...................................................................
   Those are the defintions for homogenization that I found
   nobody did any of that with the new testament.
   
   
   but you invented a new language, with new defintioins, I am simply asking for your persnonal understanding of that word.
   
   
   

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. homogenization
   1.......................................................................
   a process by which the fat droplets from milk are emulsified and the cream does not separate.
   "after homogenization and pasteurization, milk travels to one of six storage tanks"
   
   • BIOLOGY
     preparation of a suspension of cell constituents from tissue by physical treatment in a liquid.
     "the mechanical homogenization of leaf tissue"
2. .
3. the process of making things uniform or similar.
   "the fear of cultural homogenization is a barrier to some multinational businesses"
   ...................................................................
   Those are the defintions for homogenization that I found
   nobody did any of that with the new testament.
   
   
   but you invented a new language, with new defintioins, I am simply asking for your persnonal understanding of that word.
   
   

Nope. I don't know why you skipped definition number two. Perhaps because you saw that number three is the correct one? Either way you shot yourself in the foot again.

 

[Augustus]

ANOTHER tactic to destroy temples - "Constantine's principal contribution to the downfall of the temples lay quite simply in his neglect of them"

(Note your change from a neutral description of their decline after a reduction in active support to an active claim regarding of a tactic of destruction)

I can only imagine how contemptuous you would be if a Christian fundy claimed "another tactic of atheists to destroy churches is simply to neglect them".

Whatever is true, I am interested in. If that is how they destroyed churches then that is how they did it.

said nothing about bankruptcy of churches today. Nothing about atheist strategy to destroy churches (not even a thing). I said nothing about any "current situation"? You sound unhinged.

You might have meant something different, but you certainly said it when we read your words in context.

The neglect of churches today is comparable to the neglect of temples in late antiquity, either both are “destruction” or neither are as they are the exact same thing: religious buildings closing down or being repurposed because they cannot financially support themselves due to changing religious norms.

You can’t seem to understand that most things that no longer exist were not destroyed, they just weren’t actively saved despite the fact you can observe it happening today in real time.

Big deal, paganism slowly declined. They didn't completely wipe it out. None of this nullifies the evidence I presented. This is a coomplete waste of time.

You claimed they destroyed all temples of all religions and eradicated all non-canonical materials.

Being generous and accounting for hyperbole, you need to support a claim that there was a highly successful, systematic campaign to eradicate paganism and heresy across the empire and beyond.

As you now admit, paganism declined slowly as this systematic campaign of destruction never happened and all kinds of non-canonical material survived.

What all sources show is that while there was violence and legal oppression at times, violence was the exception and laws were mostly not enforced so its impact was pretty limited.

You presented no evidence that supports your claim, just stuff that supports my claim.

If you now agree with me then great, we can move on.

Of course they eradicated many things? When the Dead Sea scrolls were found we learned more about Gnostic Christianity then we knew even existed?

Christian gnosticism was Nag Hammadi, dss were Jewish, no?

For any single text to survive you needed rich people or institutions to be willing to spend large sums of money preserving them.

You saved those most important to you, as no one spends vast sums of money in perpetuity to save things that are not important to them.

The texts of fringe groups mostly don’t survive because they weren’t popular enough to gain the institutional support necessary to survive.

Any choice to save one text was implicitly a choice not to save another text.

Not to mention wars and political instability that could destroy any library or institution.

Tapes of the moon landings have been lost or perhaps recorded over, folk like you would see this as a conspiracy to destroy the truth rather than some mundane financial decisions that look bad in hindsight.

These tapes only had to survive a few decades in a rich and stable country, but were lost for all time. You seem to think missing stuff must have been destroyed by nefarious agents though, which is wilfully blind to reality.

So your claim that the reason there is no evidence for your mythical space Jesus heresies is that they were destroyed by the church and all memeory of them erased is implausible knowing what we do about imperial power and it’s limited ability to impose conformity.

We have so many heresies that did survive, and early Christianity was so factional it would be unlikely that the One True Heresy disappeared without trace despite being known to diverse Christians and opponents alike.

We know about many heresies only because orthodox Christians wrote about them to “refute” them.

This doesn’t match your claim that they destroyed all non-canonical materials

 

[leroy]

Nope. I don't know why you skipped definition number two. Perhaps because you saw that number three is the correct one? Either way you shot yourself in the foot again.

Ok so accepting this definition for homogenization

the process of making things uniform or similar.


can you show that anyone did that to the new testament?



Or should I include this in your looooooong and endless list of claims that you wont support ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so accepting this definition for homogenization

the process of making things uniform or similar.


can you show that anyone did that to the new testament?



Or should I include this in your looooooong and endless list of claims that you wont support ?

Yes. Seriously, read up on some of the history of the Bible. This is how you keep disqualifying yourself from the debate. You demonstrate that not only do you not know basic things about the Bible to debate in the first place, you ignore when those facts are brought up in posts. This is why people get so frustrate with you.

Are you going to look it up for yourself or are you going to own up to your abject ignorance?

 

[leroy]

Yes. Seriously, read up on some of the history of the Bible. This is how you keep disqualifying yourself from the debate. You demonstrate that not only do you not know basic things about the Bible to debate in the first place, you ignore when those facts are brought up in posts. This is why people get so frustrate with you.

Are you going to look it up for yourself or are you going to own up to your abject ignorance?

I have read about the history of the new testament, and how it came to be..

I found zero evidence (and zero claims) for homogenization.... to my knowledge you are the only one who has made that claim.


But you can perove me wrong, please provide your evidence for the alleged homogenization.

This is why people get so frustrate with you.

You get frustrated.... because you expect me to accept your claims, just because you say so .

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read about the history of the new testament, and how it came to be..

I found zero evidence (and zero claims) for homogenization.... to my knowledge you are the only one who has made that claim.


But you can perove me wrong, please provide your evidence for the alleged homogenization.





You get frustrated.... because you expect me to accept your claims, just because you say so .

Where did you read it? You do not have a history of using reliable sources. And no, you have to own up to your ignorance. An honest interlocutor would do so.

 

[Augustus]

So this says literally nothing to your original point? So a mystery religion emerged because someone died?
Was there a savior element to the hero character? If a mystery religion emerged based on a real person then great.

We have mystery religions based around real people.

All of the mystery religions that emerged around the time of the gods purported life were based on real people.

All the others existed in mythic time or demonstrably emerged long after the hero’s purported life.

It’s pretty obvious why this is what we would expect.

The idea that being a god in a mystery religion makes it unlikely they could have existed is clearly false.

Jesus however is not in "real time". His death was 30 AD. Paul wrote 20 years later. The 1st official canon, Marcionite, was around 144 AD. The entire 2nd century was at odds between different sects of Gnostic Christians and people looking for a power structure, as we see from the letters of Bishop Irenaeus.

Excellent, we have centuries of heresy and factional fighting that document all kinds of innovations and reimaginings, yet none of them relate to the “real origin” of a mythical space Jesus with no earthly life.

And having your limited human life written about within 20-30 years or so is near real time no matter how much you deny it.

Stories of Muhammad and his canonical biography developed for over 300 years after his life and contain many fantastical events and obvious tropes, that doesn’t make his existence less probable or early references to his life inadmissible.

Jesus started out as a demigod or in Jewish terms an archangel, who was later historicized

But everyone conveniently forgot until they started writing polemics in the early modern period…

So there is evidence Jesus existed before he came to Earth. There is no evidence of a timeline of a human man.

That would not be the most parsimonious reading of the evidence and is speculation in defence of a preconceived narrative.

Gospels are a timeline of a human man and the earliest were written within a few decades, likely based on earlier sources.

Paul refers to family and this matches Josephus.