There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Right. But who made those laws? Zealots. It's not "religion". That's just another imaginary demon.

Here, read this. You'll see that there's debate on this, the quran doesn't perscribe penalties unless they are considered acts of war. But people have escalated the issue. So, blame the people who do it. That makes sense don't you think?

Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia

Zealotry tends to be a subset of religion, though certain causes have zealots as well. With the exception of communism I am unaware of any zealots that have a strong ability to harm others than religious zealotry.

 

[lukethethird]

Right. But who made those laws? Zealots. It's not "religion". That's just another imaginary demon.

Here, read this. You'll see that there's debate on this, the quran doesn't perscribe penalties unless they are considered acts of war. But people have escalated the issue. So, blame the people who do it. That makes sense don't you think?

Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia

Oh, of course blasphemy laws are not religious laws, and zealots aren't religious zealots, silly me, yeah, blame the victims.

 

[Brian2]

But... academics really-really want that Venus tablet to be accurate so that they can assign fixed dates to their theories. And many people have been doing it for a long time. And once the dates are fixed, and people base their theoris on that, then other academics come along after and base their theories on those other theories, and the uncertainty is compounded, but not declared. People come along challenge those compounded layers of assumptions, and of course, the academic community rejects those challenges. Challenging those layers of assumptions challenges many years and many generations of scholarship.

One person has put forth a credible challenge to the dating of the Venus tablets saying they could be 300 years off pushing all of the fixed dates forward. 300 years. Thats not a drastic shift considering the quality and lack of quanitity of *actual* evidence being used to establish these dates. Other people say, the earliest *actual* fixed date is in the 600BCE-ish range. So, this person says, "No, we can still establish those early fixed dates, they're just 300 years younger." That's a moderate proposition.

Pushing the date of the atra-hasis forward 300 years puts it.... drumroll.... right in line with the Iron Age Collapse. Which is again, matching the addition of the flood story to the Epic. And was a time when the Assyrians were losing influence, and would have motive to adopt other cultures gods and myths as a way of developing a coalition. "Hey, Hey, we have that story, we have those gods. Hey, come on over here, you're Assyrians now. Come fight my battles and build my empire!"

And we haven't even talked about the actual flood story that's in the atra-hasis. When those details are compared, it's kind of like comparing the mayan pyramids with the egyptian pyramids. Yeah, they're shaped the same, but, not the same pyramids.

Anyway, I've written a lot. I hope you find it interesting.

Yes very interesting. I think that academic solidification of ideas happens a fair bit, especially in sciences where opinions of the experts of the day are the authority that everyone uses, and as you say, layer on layer of other evidence gets fitted into dates that may be inaccurate and nobody wants to do all the work to unravel it.
With the flood I don't think it matters so much as an earlier flood story imo confirms the flood story of Genesis. However it is interesting that your person with the credible challenge has hit on 300 years.
David Rohl an Egyptologist (among others) challenges Egyptology dating and has come up with 300 years forward also. (iow Rameses of the Egyptian slavery would end up as Pharaoh around the time of David) His work has implications for Israel in Egypt and the Conquest etc also.
He says it fixes a lot of things in anceint history, but many of course want to call him an idiot.
Whether it is just a distracting sidetrack or not, I don't know, but it is interesting even if it can be confusing for someone like me.
Here are a couple of videos if you are interested.

 

[lukethethird]

Ha Ha Ha. Holding my belly and laughing out loud.
Now the OP has an makeover... legitimate. Never a dull moment on RF.


You can talk from now till next year B.
The thing is, life does not revolve around what you will or will not accept.
Evidence is not valid or invalid based on the breath from your mouth.

Tacitus on Jesus

Authenticity​

Most scholars hold the passage to be authentic, i.e., they hold that Tacitus really wrote it; however, this has also sometimes been questioned.
Suggestions that they may have been a complete forgery have been generally rejected by scholars...
Given that Tacitus is really the author of the Annals, the next question is whether this particular passage is part of the original work, or whether it was inserted later in the process of copying the text. Here too, most scholars hold the passage to be authentic.

Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine"


Sorry.
Now you are back to where I began.
I'm not doing that circle though, so... peace.

I will say this though. Continue to pick which you like, but then, asking questions about it, or asking people to provide what's there, when you know you will reject it, and pick whatever goes against it, isn't very useful... now is it.
Then behind that, claiming that you genuinely want to see something that Christians can provide in support of their beliefs, isn't consistent with your position, is it.

You should be laughing since Christian scholars have to look to second century historians commenting on religious beliefs a hundred years after the supposed facts, as if there were any. Not a single non-Christian writing from the first century because no one noticed or even heard of the story. So you look to the second century and say "see, there it is, evidence, Christian scholars blah blah blah," what a joke.

 

[Colt]

You should be laughing since Christian scholars have to look to second century historians commenting on religious beliefs a hundred years after the supposed facts, as if there were any. Not a single non-Christian writing from the first century because no one noticed or even heard of the story. So you look to the second century and say "see, there it is, evidence, Christian scholars blah blah blah," what a joke.

Jesus had not yet become a noteworthy historic figure that a Jewish historian would have seen as important enough to include in a presentation to future generations.

The followers of Jesus were a small cult of messianic claimants inside of Judaism for a long time. Why would an historian in 50-60 -70 AD take note of small band of fringe followers of a dead Messiah? There were much larger interests to a future Jewish audience around the events of 70+ AD.

 

[Augustus]

Why would it not have been?

Because for most authors, one or more of the following applied:

1. The purpose of explaining the past was to make a point about the present (political commentary, teaching, moralistic, etc.)
2. You were writing on behalf of a patron or court, often hagiography about them
3. You were promoting a particular religious, political, nationalistic or jingoistic position
4. You were relying on folk tales, oral histories, gossip, etc. that were as much about entertainment as truth
5. You were constructing narratives, and the narrative (inspired by rhetoric, epic, etc. was more important than factualness: "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
5. You were engaging in self-justification, as many historians were also politicians, generals, etc.

They weren't tenured professors writing peer-reviewed articles.

The foundation for reporting objectively was laid down well over two thousand years ago.

That elements of modern historiography and philosophy of history developed over time is true, that we should view the ancient practice of history as governed by similar normative principles as modern academic history is not.

Even if we accept that a handful of superstar historians were trying to be objective (and we shouldn't as they weren't), this still leaves the vast majority of historians as doing something else.

Do you really think Herodotus, Josephus, Thucydides, Livy etc were trying to write objective, fair and balanced histories?

 

[Audie]

Well, that leaves out the Christians obviously.

No. It Ieaves out the creationists.
The intellectually dishonest.
Educated Christians by the million
seem quite able to understand facts.

 

[Ashoka]

I see it as bringing much of the world together.

"Christianity didn't become a world religion because of quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence" - Eleanor Ferguson

 

[nPeace]

Accept it or reject it, I don't care. It's what the non-Christian, non-biased experts say. Take it up with them.

Accept or reject what? What you reject? Okay. I accept what you reject. Now what? Tacitus is fully non-Christian, in case you haven't noticed. A non-biased Roman who was against Christians.
Care to say why you reject it?

 

[Colt]

"Christianity didn't become a world religion because of quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence" - Eleanor Ferguson

Not really, Christians were relentlessly persecuted, hunted down and killed in its early days. You are focusing on later missteps by the institutional church and associated governments.

Did Jesus tell anyone to use violence to spread his spiritual teachings?

 

[PureX]

"Christianity didn't become a world religion because of quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence" - Eleanor Ferguson

Eleanore was wrong about that. You can enforce behavior with violence, but you can't enforce belief that way. In fact, all that's likely to happen is that you will encourage an intense anti-belief by using violence.

 

[rocala]

143 posts!

Don't feed it, folks. Intractable bombast is, first and foremost, intractable.

Why? It is an excellent question, it has created a huge debate involving many people and covering many relevant subjects. It is as if RF really is a religious forum. Perhaps you are more into pictures of birthday cakes and endless snipes at Trump/Biden.

 

[nPeace]

You should be laughing since Christian scholars have to look to second century historians commenting on religious beliefs a hundred years after the supposed facts, as if there were any.

Too bad for them. What they feel they have to do has nothing to do with me. Christians know better than to rely on these scholars and their flawed opinions.

Not a single non-Christian writing from the first century because no one noticed or even heard of the story.

Speaking of flawed opinions...
We know that those who are against something which they would rather prevent persons getting, will not publicly broadcast it.
I mean, this is elementary knowledge. When do we hear about what your government has been doing in secret?

The ones who care, and want people to know the truth, are the ones broadcasting it.
Tada

We can't forget Paul, James, and others.
Centuries later, persons who care about the truth are still broadcasting it. Mind you... against opposers, and those who want to silence them.
Is it any wonder that the only mention of Jesus prior to the second century, is from those who love truth. It isn't.
By the way, Josephus was not a Christian. His writings were first century.

So you look to the second century and say "see, there it is, evidence, Christian scholars blah blah blah," what a joke.

Nah. That's not me. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Read my first, second, third... In fact, read all my posts in this thread, and you should realize, I don't depend on what historians say... nor scholarly opinions.

I merely posted these to debunk @Thrillobyte's erroneous claims.

 

[nPeace]

Truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

That's funny. How can you talk about objective reality, when you don't even know what that is.
Objective reality is not what humans decide it is. Objective reality exists regardless of human existence.

 

[Jimmy]

No, it dilutes the concept of "god" to worthlessness. It also automatically refutes your 1980 beliefs. But even you can't take those seriously.

Refute? Nope

 

[blü 2]

That's funny. How can you talk about objective reality, when you don't even know what that is.

Very easily, and I guess it's time someone told you. From where you sit, the universe is divided into two parts ─ you, and the world external to you, which is the same thing as nature, objective reality, the realm of the physical sciences ─ and so on. We know about it through our senses, all day and every day. It's where our parents, air, food, water, society, DC comics, come from.


By the way, you never got back to me with an answer (only endless evasions) ─ have you worked out yet what the death of Jesus achieved that an omnipotent God could not have achieved without bloodshed and with one snap of those mighty fingers (or whatever God has instead of fingers)?

If so, you'll have no trouble setting it out in a clear statement here. As is notorious, you've never done that in the past.

If you don't know, your record to date says you'll make excuses and evade as usual (and no one will be surprised) but the question won't have gone away.

Here's your chance to show us what you know ─ one way or the other.

 

[Jimmy]

No, it dilutes the concept of "god" to worthlessness. It also automatically refutes your 1980 beliefs. But even you can't take those seriously.

Haha the universe is worthless? Nah

 

[F1fan]

Jesus had not yet become a noteworthy historic figure that a Jewish historian would have seen as important enough to include in a presentation to future generations.

The followers of Jesus were a small cult of messianic claimants inside of Judaism for a long time. Why would an historian in 50-60 -70 AD take note of small band of fringe followers of a dead Messiah? There were much larger interests to a future Jewish audience around the events of 70+ AD.

There were many small sects based on the Jesus myth. The ecumenical counsels gathered to whittle the Bible down from over 200 books to either 72 or 66, depending on the version. And there was a uniform set of beliefs that were engineered to unify all the small sects into what became Catholicsm evntually. That took about 4 centuries.

 

[Thrillobyte]

you do not mess with OSHA

Not if you want to live. Oh, wait. Jesus is already dead.

 

[F1fan]

Too bad for them. What they feel they have to do has nothing to do with me. Christians know better than to rely on these scholars and their flawed opinions.

Right, Christians have their own flawed opinions.

In the end how does any of the Jesus myth make any sense to be interpreted literally?