There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Colt]

Now you're projecting. I mean, this is literally what you just did.

I'd prefer you address the point I made against yours.

Your point seemed to be, some people believe things that aren't true and use that to mislead others.
My rebuttal was that Jesus warned people about false teachers.
Then you tried to make another point about the exchange itself.

 

[F1fan]

Your point seemed to be, some people believe things that aren't true and use that to mislead others.
My rebuttal was that Jesus warned people about false teachers

Like the Urantia book.

 

[PureX]

I would say the head can lead us astray every bit as much as the heart can. People convince themselves of all sorts of useless nonsense by way of what they consider reasoned argument.

Amen, Brother!

I have found as I get older that a strong antidote for this unfortunate human habit is to stop looking to be "convinced". Stop thinking I'm supposed to "know everything". And just live by faith instead of belief.

By and large, I have learned to trust my intuition though not without reservations.

(Thumb's up.)

 

[dybmh]

Have you demonstrated that a non-material anything exists? Has anyone?

Irrelevant.

At best non-material means imaginary, so how is it a fault to not accept the non-material as real?

No, it simply means not observable using material senses.

You never explained how this is a limitation.

It's a limitation because all the material senses have limitations.

All premises have to be true already.

No.... a question can be asked which presumes.

Theists can't manage to show I'm wrong, or any other critical thinker, so why would I assume their supernatural assumptions are true and my skepticism is wrong?

Anytime you ask a question ABOUT God, that is presuming God exists. Why would you do it? It's supposed to be a stumper, a gotcha question.

"Even if this so-called God exists, how can it be omnibenevolent if there's so much suffering and chaos inthe world? ... ... Gotcha!"

You tell me why theist fail miserably to demonstrate there is any Gods, angels, demons, devils, and any other suvernatural being they so easily claim exists?

I think people are wrong to assert these things can be proven to exist.
I think it's wrong to criticise non-belief.

Why do people fail at the demonstration? You know why. There is no proof. And I think that's by design, that's intended.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your point seemed to be, some people believe things that aren't true and use that to mislead others.

Your argument was that people really believed in Jesus, really believed they saw his resurrected body and were willing to lose their lives for their belief, and so it must be true.
My counter-argument to that was that lots and lots of people strongly believe things that aren't true all the time. The number of people that believe a thing has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

My rebuttal was that Jesus warned people about false teachers.
Then you tried to make another point about the exchange itself.

Your rebuttal was basically just, oh well lots of people believe in false things, but this thing I believe in is true. Which isn't a rebuttal at all.

 

[Alien826]

Well, yes in one sense. And no, in another for good and bad, as what matters, since they are not objective and thus evidence can't be used on them.

Science can be used to better kill humans or save them, but it can't test which one is better. It can only tell how to do what you want better, but not if it is better.

OK then. As an example, morality can be seen as subjective. But there are ways to arrive at a morality that is somewhat objective. For example, we could use science to determine what most people feel is right and wrong. I believe a majority would agree that hurting another person just to enjoy the experience is wrong. Once is that determined, science can be used to test whether a particular action falls into that category. Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Alien826]

Anytime you ask a question ABOUT God, that is presuming God exists. Why would you do it? It's supposed to be a stumper, a gotcha question.

"Even if this so-called God exists, how can it be omnibenevolent if there's so much suffering and chaos inthe world? ... ... Gotcha!"

Isn't that how it goes though? All these criticisms of religious positions go that way. What's wrong with pointing out that something in someone's claims is contradictory? And if an atheist makes such a statement without the qualifier "if god exists" isn't it reasonable to assume that an atheist doesn't actually believe in god?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK then. As an example, morality can be seen as subjective. But there are ways to arrive at a morality that is somewhat objective. For example, we could use science to determine what most people feel is right and wrong. I believe a majority would agree that hurting another person just to enjoy the experience is wrong. Once is that determined, science can be used to test whether a particular action falls into that category. Does that make any sense to you?

Yeah, but it is still subjective. It is not science that does the feeling of right and wrong. It is the humans, who do that.
Science observe people who feel right or wrong. Science doesn't feel right or wrong, hence science can't do morality, it can only observe it.
Do that make sense to you?

 

[Alien826]

Yeah, but it is still subjective. It is not science that does the feeling of right and wrong. It is the humans, who do that.
Science observe people who feel right or wrong. Science doesn't feel right or wrong, hence science can't do morality, it can only observe it.
Do that make sense to you?

Um. Science doesn't DO black holes either, but it can observe them and tell us things about them.

 

[dybmh]

Isn't that how it goes though? All these criticisms of religious positions go that way. What's wrong with pointing out that something in someone's claims is contradictory? And if an atheist makes such a statement without the qualifier "if god exists" isn't it reasonable to assume that an atheist doesn't actually believe in god?

Yes, of course. But if there isn't a contradiction, and that contradiction can be resolved. The Gotcha... becomes.... "Well... but.... God... though... can you prove God exists? Huh? huh? ... ... Gotcha."

It's even more rude if they don't let you finish the answer. They can feel the defeat like a warm river creeping down their pant leg. And then they cover up, and change the subject... quick-quick before anyone sees.

It's stupid.

Like I said before. The only reason I answer these questions is for other people reading them. The religious person who is stumpted and isn't getting a good answer from anyone, they deserve an answer.

The stupid critic who pulls a bait and switch, and pretends to be a critical thinker, and pretends to be logical... they get ridiculed. And rightly so. As soon as they expose their FAITH... if they've been criticising the faithful. Yup. That hypocrisy should be exposed.

 

[The Hammer]

His spirit fills my soul with a sense of peace and happiness. I feel the power of Rubeus Hagrid come over me when I call on his name.

Then you should keep it up and let His spirit guide you.

 

[Alien826]

It's even more rude if they don't let you finish the answer. They can feel the defeat like a warm river creeping down their pant leg. And then they cover up, and change the subject... quick-quick before anyone sees.

Maybe that's the only warm feeling atheists get from religion.

And we should all be grateful to you for pointing out how stupid we all are. How would we have known otherwise?

 

[dybmh]

Maybe that's the only warm feeling atheists get from religion.

Hee. They don't need to ask dumb bait and switch questions to pee themselves.

And we should all be grateful to you for pointing out how stupid we all are. How would we have known otherwise?

*shrugs* I wasn't speaking about ALL anyone. Just critics when they do that gotcha thing.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I'll let you read:

"The factual accuracy of Tacitus work is indeed questionable. It is based largely on a secondary source of unknown reliability"

'how Accurate An Historian Was Tacitus?' - History Resource

The Tutor Hunt network helps both tutors and students find each other. Search by level, subject and location, create your own tutor or student profile for free.

www.tutorhunt.com

So answer the question: if Jesus had no problem appearing to 500 post-resurrected, why does he have such a problem appearing to people now? Maybe because in reality he never appeared to anybody, it's all just mythology because he's a myth?


Try this: in reality this "Jesus wants you to put your trust in him purely on faith without any evidence" gets preached because it's easy as pie to dupe gullible dopes into believing in something when you HAVE no evidence to prove it. All you have to do is just tell them, "God wants you to believe in Jesus without a shred of evidence he is real. That makes God happy." And gullible fools scratch their heads and say, "Well, if God wants me to do it then I guess it's the right thing to do. I know you wouldn't lie to me about something so serious so you must be telling the truth."

Does that sound about right?

The source for this is Britannica. That's a good source. But this is about Tacitus as a historian in general. Do you have anything that says to the effect that Tacitus consulted all these great Roman historians about Jesus and Christians and Chrestus? Note that none of your cited Roman historians were in Israel in the time of Jesus and Titus Livius wasn't even living in a time when Jesus started his ministry. How would these people know a thing about Jesus? If you're saying, "This proves Tacitus was an excellent historian who used 1st-rate sources" I'd say, "That's questionable far as the Christians passage goes because Tacitus doesn't give a single citation for how he got his information. Did he get it from Nero? From colleagues? From Christians? From writings about Christians from lost sources?

You tell me, nPeace: who did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from?

Still waiting for your reply to my question, nPeace.

My turn to ask:

You are free to respond.
Are you a man to your word?

 

[Colt]

Your argument was that people really believed in Jesus, really believed they saw his resurrected body and were willing to lose their lives for their belief, and so it must be true.
My counter-argument to that was that lots and lots of people strongly believe things that aren't true all the time. The number of people that believe a thing has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

Your rebuttal was basically just, oh well lots of people believe in false things, but this thing I believe in is true. Which isn't a rebuttal at all.

The cult leaders you speak if never saw the resurrected Jesus. The apostles did! They in turn told others.

The teachings of Jesus never tell anyone to drink poison and commit mass suicide!

 

[fantome profane]

The cult leaders you speak if never saw the resurrected Jesus. The apostles did! They in turn told others.

The teachings of Jesus never tell anyone to drink poison and commit mass suicide!

Mark 16:18

 

[Colt]

Mark 16:18

“Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.”

 

[fantome profane]

“Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.”

Yes I know that. Just wanted to see if you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The cult leaders you speak if never saw the resurrected Jesus. The apostles did! They in turn told others.

The teachings of Jesus never tell anyone to drink poison and commit mass suicide!

There is no record that I am aware of where the apostles wrote such claims themselves.

 

[nPeace]

That is a grand cop-out. Jesus came here to save people from hell. The easiest way for a god like Jesus to save people from hell is to simply appear to them and show them what he accomplished--show them the wounds in his hands and side. They would have gotten Pilate over to Rome and asked him, "Is this the man you crucified?" and Pilate would have said, "Yes, it is" and Jesus could have converted all 5 million people in Rome at once. That's commonsense.

The reason why commonsense like that doesn't work in Christianity is because none of it--NONE OF IT is true. Not Jesus, not his resurrection, not his appearance to 500, not any of it.

Jesus is best witness AGAINST his own words:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light." Luke 8:16

Jesus could have been that light on the stand that people entering the room could see, but instead he chose to hide himself under the bed and appear only to a select handful of people who chose not to corroborate anything Jesus did. That's bonkers.

The whole paradigm of Christianity is bonkers because none of it is true. Its logic simply doesn't work in the real world. It's all fabrication. Commonsense reveals how crazy all this is.

Have you actually read the Gospels?

(John 10:25, 26) Jesus answered them: “I told you, and yet you do not believe. The works that I am doing in my Father’s name, these bear witness about me. But you do not believe. . ."

(John 10:32) .Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?”

(John 10:37, 38) 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.”

(Matthew 11:4-6) 4 In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: 5 The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. 6 Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”

(Luke 4:14) 14 . . .And good reports about him spread throughout all the surrounding country.


That does not sound like one who hid his lamp, does it.
Some people hope to see spectacular displays, but the fact that they did not believe the powerful works Jesus did, proves that no amount of evidence would satisfy them.
If they saw Jesus walk on water, they would claim there is some trick, so maybe he needs to do something else, like stand in front of a speeding train, and be standing there after the train passed. Oh wait. They will claim he caused an illusion and stepped off the track at the last minute, then stepped back on

It's just feigning sincerity. They were as Jesus described them - hypocrites... people who get evidence, but they claim it's not legitimate. They want to see something they think they won't see.
Speaking of which...

You are trying really hard.

I'll let you read:

"The factual accuracy of Tacitus work is indeed questionable. It is based largely on a secondary source of unknown reliability"

'how Accurate An Historian Was Tacitus?' - History Resource

The Tutor Hunt network helps both tutors and students find each other. Search by level, subject and location, create your own tutor or student profile for free.

www.tutorhunt.com

My question was not, what objections do minority scholars... like one individual you quoted 99 times now, have, but Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.
Why don't virtually all scholars agree with this super scholar... what's his name...

I'm interested in hearing why you reject the majority opinion in this case. Is it something you normally do?
Why are you against their opinions, here?

Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the Acta Senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the Acta Diurna (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen[by whom?] as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources.


Paul Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.

Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.

So answer the question: if Jesus had no problem appearing to 500 post-resurrected, why does he have such a problem appearing to people now?

I answered, did I? See this post.
Regarding Jesus appearing to people now... Jesus isn't doing the will of atheists. Jesus is doing the will of his father.
So, when sent to earth, Jesus preached to those on hand, and gave evidence of his origin.
He had a following, from which he gave authority to carry on the work.
It is through Jesus followers, that he teaches the meek... These are the ones Jesus are interested in... remember? Babes.

(Matthew 18:2-5) 2 So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.

This is about doing things God's way. Atheists are not the ones calling the shots here.
Please remember that @Thrillobyte.

Maybe because in reality he never appeared to anybody, it's all just mythology because he's a myth?

Actually, becase of this attitude.

Try this: in reality this "Jesus wants you to put your trust in him purely on faith without any evidence" gets preached because it's easy as pie to dupe gullible dopes into believing in something when you HAVE no evidence to prove it. All you have to do is just tell them, "God wants you to believe in Jesus without a shred of evidence he is real. That makes God happy." And gullible fools scratch their heads and say, "Well, if God wants me to do it then I guess it's the right thing to do. I know you wouldn't lie to me about something so serious so you must be telling the truth."

Does that sound about right?

Does it? Then what was the purpose of Jesus performing powerful works?
Even the man born blind, who received his sight, wasn't that unreasonable.
(John 9:30) . . .The man answered them: “This is certainly amazing, that you do not know where he is from, and yet he opened my eyes."

The man had to marvel. Amazing.

The source for this is Britannica. That's a good source. But this is about Tacitus as a historian in general. Do you have anything that says to the effect that Tacitus consulted all these great Roman historians about Jesus and Christians and Chrestus?

When you say anything, do you mean anything aside from what I provided?
What are you looking for exactly?
Tell me something... What history do you accept?
By the way, you haven't kept you word. Is there something wrong with the sources? What?

Note that none of your cited Roman historians were in Israel in the time of Jesus and Titus Livius wasn't even living in a time when Jesus started his ministry. How would these people know a thing about Jesus? If you're saying, "This proves Tacitus was an excellent historian who used 1st-rate sources" I'd say, "That's questionable far as the Christians passage goes because Tacitus doesn't give a single citation for how he got his information. Did he get it from Nero? From colleagues? From Christians? From writings about Christians from lost sources?

You tell me, nPeace: who did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from?

It's all there in the references I linked @Thrillobyte. Have you read them? What are you having a problem with?
Why are the majority of scholars having that problem?

I'll be back later.