There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

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.

That's a pretty crappy job on God's part, taking a whole century to get Christianity off the ground, wouldn't you say, Coulter? Some omnipotent God!

 

[Colt]

That's a pretty crappy job on God's part, taking a whole century to get Christianity off the ground, wouldn't you say, Coulter? Some omnipotent God!

No, not at all! Religions don't suddenly appear and convert the whole planet! It takes time. We are free to accept spiritual revelation or reject it. The gospel spread by word of mouth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence is not valid or invalid based on the breath from your mouth.

Evidence is never valid or invalid. That's a category error. In philosophy, valid refers to arguments conforming or not conforming to the accepted laws of reason. In lay language, valid means in effect, like coupons and promises and wills, but that's not relevant here. An evidenced argument is a logical chain connecting evidence to a conclusion about that evidence. If the reasoning is fallacy-free, IT is said to be valid, not the evidence, and if the reasoning is valid, the conclusion is sound. Neither of those terms applies to evidence.

And what makes an argument valid is that it conforms to the laws of reasoning. If that is what is on the "breath of [his] mouth," and he is skilled at applying these rules to evidence, then his conclusions will be correct (sound).

This is more than a semantic quibble. When one says his evidence is valid, he is saying nothing about the evidence. He's saying that his argument derived from it and which connects that evidence to his conclusions is valid. That's what he needs to justify, but he doesn't want to discuss that argument, and so he keeps deflecting back to the starting point, the evidence, which existence isn't in question.

Many seem to think that their private ways of processing information and connecting evidence to conclusions are also valid, but that assumption is rejected by the academic community. The matter of what constitutes truth, knowledge, fact, etc. is not open for debate in academic circles, and whatever definitions are used outside of academia aren't of interest. These matters are no more subjective than the rules of arithmetic. Mathematicians decide when the arithmetic is done properly according to academic standards. If those aren't the rules one wants to use to add, for example, then his opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the community of experts.

This is the problem the creationists have. They have their own rules for "science" and scoff at being rejected from academic journals with other standards. They seem to think that this is a debate and that their opinion should matter to the scientists, that if they still dissent that there is still controversy. But the community of experts isn't listening to them.

And this is the sine qua non of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome - not recognizing that one's opinions are not equal.

People don't have to forgive perpetrators, but carrying the grudge only hurts the person carrying it.

What are you imagining is happening in such heads that you see as harmful? What you call a grudge I call learning.

It's interesting that one only reads these kinds of things when somebody wants somebody else to act as if what happened never happened. You want Christianity's past sins forgotten, and so out comes this language, but contrast it with your own grudge against atheists, and we won't see you waxing philosophical about the cost of carrying a grudge.

My religion doesn't teach me to hate atheists.

You learned your disrespect for atheists from one of the religions.

I just think that atheists who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people way from faith are mean spirited and evil.

But you would never say that about people who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people away from reason and humanism, which is the same thing apart from the fact that you have been taught that one is good and holy and the other evil.

The decent atheists are neutral, they aren't activists who join religious forums to mock believers.

Once again, your religious upbringing is showing through. Even though this is a symmetric discussion, you frame it in terms of persecution - as if one group is here to attack the other. This is debate.

I see it as bringing much of the world together.

Christianity? It's doing a nice job of bringing Americans together with all of its love and guidance regarding abortion, book banning, drag shows, and LGBTQ issues.

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.

I guess the miracles weren't that noteworthy. Wasn't that their point - to say that this man who could turn water into wine and raise the dead was a noteworthy person?

 

[F1fan]

No, not at all! Religions don't suddenly appear and convert the whole planet! It takes time. We are free to accept spiritual revelation or reject it. The gospel spread by word of mouth.

I know, it's almost as if they are man'made. Who knew religions were all God's slow plan via word of mouth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Refute? Nope

Yes, but logic appears to be missing from your toolbox.

 

[Jimmy]

Yes, but logic appears to be missing from your toolbox.

Is logic missing from the 4 billion chrisians who believe that Jesus physically rose from the grave? Hahaha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha the universe is worthless? Nah

I did not say or even imply that. You are much closer to that than I am.

 

[Jimmy]

I did not say or even imply that. You are much closer to that than I am.

Ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is logic missing from the 4 billion chrisians who believe that Jesus physically rose from the grave? Hahaha

In that particular belief, yes, it is missing. Why do you think that Christianity is a logical belief? There are rational (for the most part, no one is totally rational) that know that their Jesus beliefs are not rational. That is the closest that you will come to rational thought involving Christianity.

 

[Colt]

Evidence is never valid or invalid. That's a category error. In philosophy, valid refers to arguments conforming or not conforming to the accepted laws of reason. In lay language, valid means in effect, like coupons and promises and wills, but that's not relevant here. An evidenced argument is a logical chain connecting evidence to a conclusion about that evidence. If the reasoning is fallacy-free, IT is said to be valid, not the evidence, and if the reasoning is valid, the conclusion is sound. Neither of those terms applies to evidence.

And what makes an argument valid is that it conforms to the laws of reasoning. If that is what is on the "breath of [his] mouth," and he is skilled at applying these rules to evidence, then his conclusions will be correct (sound).

This is more than a semantic quibble. When one says his evidence is valid, he is saying nothing about the evidence. He's saying that his argument derived from it and which connects that evidence to his conclusions is valid. That's what he needs to justify, but he doesn't want to discuss that argument, and so he keeps deflecting back to the starting point, the evidence, which existence isn't in question.

Many seem to think that their private ways of processing information and connecting evidence to conclusions are also valid, but that assumption is rejected by the academic community. The matter of what constitutes truth, knowledge, fact, etc. is not open for debate in academic circles, and whatever definitions are used outside of academia aren't of interest. These matters are no more subjective than the rules of arithmetic. Mathematicians decide when the arithmetic is done properly according to academic standards. If those aren't the rules one wants to use to add, for example, then his opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the community of experts.

This is the problem the creationists have. They have their own rules for "science" and scoff at being rejected from academic journals with other standards. They seem to think that this is a debate and that their opinion should matter to the scientists, that if they still dissent that there is still controversy. But the community of experts isn't listening to them.

And this is the sine qua non of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome - not recognizing that one's opinions are not equal.

What are you imagining is happening in such heads that you see as harmful? What you call a grudge I call learning.

It's interesting that one only reads these kinds of things when somebody wants somebody else to act as if what happened never happened. You want Christianity's past sins forgotten, and so out comes this language, but contrast it with your own grudge against atheists, and we won't see you waxing philosophical about the cost of carrying a grudge.

You learned your disrespect for atheists from one of the religions.

But you would never say that about people who put a lot of effort into trying to lead people away from reason and humanism, which is the same thing apart from the fact that you have been taught that one is good and holy and the other evil.

Once again, your religious upbringing is showing through. Even though this is a symmetric discussion, you frame it in terms of persecution - as if one group is here to attack the other. This is debate.

Christianity? It's doing a nice job of bringing Americans together with all of its love and guidance regarding abortion, book banning, drag shows, and LGBTQ issues.

I guess the miracles weren't that noteworthy. Wasn't that their point - to say that this man who could turn water into wine and raise the dead was a noteworthy person?

I learned about the consequences of atheist activist from the Lucifer rebellion. I learned that the life of Atheists spend a lot of time on religious forums trying to convert people to their way of thinking. I've learned that Atheism is a sort of religion all on its own!

 

[Jimmy]

In that particular belief, yes, it is missing. Why do you think that Christianity is a logical belief? There are rational (for the most part, no one is totally rational) that know that their Jesus beliefs are not rational. That is the closest that you will come to rational thought involving Christianity.

Ok

 

[Thrillobyte]

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?

Yes:

1. the Tacitus passage is pure hearsay gotten about 40th-hand from rumors Tacitus heard about Christians, likely from other Romans talking about the Christians.

Richard Carrier, PhD in Biblical history says this about this Tacitus passage:

"Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect."

2 Tacitus does not give any references to how he came about the information therefore the passage has no foundation for veracity. It's worthless, only good as a historical curiosity.

3. Tacitus does NOT mention the name, Jesus. All he says is "....called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin...." Israel was lousy with "Christs" in Jesus' time. Tacitus didn't know who was referring to or he would have named the Christ by his proper name, Jesus.

4. Tacitus is writing a full century after the alleged events of Jesus. How much reliable info do you think he's going to get with that large a gap in time and ALL witnesses dead having left no writings. Note: the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts according to nearly all historians.

5. How do we know Tacitus isn't referring to Dositheos the Samaritan

• Dositheos the Samaritan (mid 1st century), Origen wrote that Dositheos wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Jewish Messiah who was prophesied by Moses, and classes him with John the Baptist, Theodas, and Judas of Galilee as people whom the Jews mistakenly held to be the Christ (Hom. xxv in Lucam; Contra Celsum, I, lvii).[16][17]

6. There is NO reliable text of the Annals directly from Roman records. The first copy doesn't appear until roughly 800 years after it was allegedly written.

"There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand."

The Text of Tacitus' Annals and Histories Survived in Only Two Manuscripts : History of Information ​

www.historyofinformation.com


"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred NOT to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."

I can't make it any clearer than that, nPeace:

1. It's hearsay.
2. No foundation for text, no citations
3. Tacitus doesn't say the name, "Jesus".
4. Comes a century after the crucifixion
5. Academia.edu abstract: "Advances the argument of Rougé to find that in all probability Tacitus never actually referred to Christ at all, and the famous passage now in the manuscripts originally referenced a Jewish rebel group formed by Chrestus a decade later, unconnected to Christianity, and Christian scribes subsequently 'improved' the passage by inserting a line about Christ."

You can clearly see the "e' whited out to make an "i".

Christian churchmen changed "Chrestus" a Jewish rebel to "Christus" in an attempt to make it appear Tacitus was referring to Jesus.

Epic Fail.

 

[Thrillobyte]

No, not at all! Religions don't suddenly appear and convert the whole planet! It takes time. We are free to accept spiritual revelation or reject it. The gospel spread by word of mouth.

Other religions take time. But presumably, God, being the father Jesus, wants people to hear Jesus' message right away, wouldn't you say?

 

[Alien826]

Only you didn’t find it empty, did you? You found something there, then discovered that when you examined it, it was gone. Spiritual awakenings are often like that; we have an epiphany of sorts, but when we try to pin down and define whatever it is we felt, it slips away like mid morning dew. But it leaves traces of itself within us, often at a level beyond either the intellect or the ego.

At the time, I thought there was something there. Now I think the most likely explanation was that it was all dreamed up in my mind. I've had these strange "brain farts" at other times. The human mind is a mysterious thing. The problem with treating these experiences as real is that they do "slip away", but before they do thay can lead you to places you don't want to be.

I'll give another example. I couldn't sleep for night after night because I had a problem at work that I couldn't solve, and the pressure to do so was getting stronger and stronger. Then, in the early hours of one morning, I woke with the solution in my mind. I slipped into a dreamless sleep. When I awoke in the morning I examined this solution and realized that it was totally incorrect. My brain had fooled itself into believing I had the answer so it could get the sleep it desperately needed.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Objective reality is not what humans decide it is. Objective reality exists regardless of human existence.

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.

 

[nPeace]

Evidence is never valid or invalid. That's a category error. In philosophy, valid refers to arguments conforming or not conforming to the accepted laws of reason. In lay language, valid means in effect, like coupons and promises and wills, but that's not relevant here. An evidenced argument is a logical chain connecting evidence to a conclusion about that evidence. If the reasoning is fallacy-free, IT is said to be valid, not the evidence, and if the reasoning is valid, the conclusion is sound. Neither of those terms applies to evidence.

And what makes an argument valid is that it conforms to the laws of reasoning. If that is what is on the "breath of [his] mouth," and he is skilled at applying these rules to evidence, then his conclusions will be correct (sound).

This is more than a semantic quibble. When one says his evidence is valid, he is saying nothing about the evidence. He's saying that his argument derived from it and which connects that evidence to his conclusions is valid. That's what he needs to justify, but he doesn't want to discuss that argument, and so he keeps deflecting back to the starting point, the evidence, which existence isn't in question.

Many seem to think that their private ways of processing information and connecting evidence to conclusions are also valid, but that assumption is rejected by the academic community. The matter of what constitutes truth, knowledge, fact, etc. is not open for debate in academic circles, and whatever definitions are used outside of academia aren't of interest. These matters are no more subjective than the rules of arithmetic. Mathematicians decide when the arithmetic is done properly according to academic standards. If those aren't the rules one wants to use to add, for example, then his opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the community of experts.

This is the problem the creationists have. They have their own rules for "science" and scoff at being rejected from academic journals with other standards. They seem to think that this is a debate and that their opinion should matter to the scientists, that if they still dissent that there is still controversy. But the community of experts isn't listening to them.

And this is the sine qua non of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome - not recognizing that one's opinions are not equal.

Why are you preaching your "wisdom" to me? Shouldn't you be preaching it to @Thrillobyte?

 

[nPeace]

Right, Christians have their own flawed opinions.

Not Christians. "Christians", yes.

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

In the end, you will see what you don't currently want to.

 

[Colt]

Other religions take time. But presumably, God, being the father Jesus, wants people to hear Jesus' message right away, wouldn't you say?

Apparently not, Jesus taught a handful of leaders and teachers to carry the message to the 4 corners of the earth. On evolutionary world things take time.

 

[lukethethird]

Why are you preaching your "wisdom" to me? Shouldn't you be preaching it to @Thrillobyte?

Because you only believe what you have been told to believe by your religious leaders. Religious beliefs require no thought whatsoever, justs parrots in an echo chamber.

 

[nPeace]

Yes:


I can't make it any clearer than that, nPeace:

1. It's hearsay.
2. No foundation for text, no citations
3. Tacitus doesn't say the name, "Jesus".
4. Comes a century after the crucifixion
5. Academia.edu abstract: "Advances the argument of Rougé to find that in all probability Tacitus never actually referred to Christ at all, and the famous passage now in the manuscripts originally referenced a Jewish rebel group formed by Chrestus a decade later, unconnected to Christianity, and Christian scribes subsequently 'improved' the passage by inserting a line about Christ."

You can clearly see the "e' whited out to make an "i".

View attachment 78304

Christian churchmen changed "Chrestus" a Jewish rebel to "Christus" in an attempt to make it appear Tacitus was referring to Jesus.

Epic Fail.

Well that confirms my earlier statements, doesn't it?
When the majority of scholars accept something you don't like, they are blind - covering their eyes from seeing what's plain as day to other scholars, such as... what's his name... Richard Carrie.
When the majority of scholars accept something you like, they are gods - full of all wisdom and knowledge, in all inerrancy - infallible. While the others can go fly a kite.

That's it then. Nothing more to say than what's already been said.