There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Not all of them are barbaric, only the older ones. The Baha'i Faith is not barbaric at all.

The Baha'i Faith has always been a minority faith. It takes a majority to force immoral beliefs upon others. Baha'i has not had an opportunity to fail yet.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Not all of them are barbaric, only the older ones. The Baha'i Faith is not barbaric at all.

Oh I thin k Baha'i is a great religion to join. None of this "Accept Baha'ullah as your personal Lord and savior or you will go to hell and burn forever" nonsense.

 

[Augustus]

ALthough Jesus scores almost a perfect score on the RR mythotype in Mark, it's not based on this . Someone who reviewed the book but didn't read it (there are many) may have said that and you found it.

“Again, even if we started from a neutral prior of 50% and walked our way through ‘all persons claimed to be historical’ to ‘all persons who became Rank–Raglan heroes’, we’d end up again with that same probability of 1 in 3. For example, if again there were 5,000 historical persons and 1,000 mythical persons, the prior probability of being historical would be 5/6; and of not being historical, 1/6. But if there are 10 mythical men in the Rank–Raglan class and 5 historical men (the four we are granting, plus one more, who may or may not be Jesus), then the probability of being in that class given that someone was historical would be 5/5000, which is 1/1000; and the probability given that they were mythical would be 10/1000, which is 1/100. This gives us a final probability of 1/3, hence 33%.16 No matter how you chew on it, no matter what numbers you put in, with these ratios you always end up with the same prior probability that Jesus was an actual historical man: just 33% at best.”

Excerpt From
On the Historicity of Jesus
Richard Carrier

Paul,
Gospels - Mark uses Paul and other fiction to construct a Hellenistic savior myth. All gospels use Mark.
Josephus has been dealt with and isn't independent at all, also is probably a forgery. The Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery and the James reference isn't about Jesus.

Richard Carrier says that, most other scholars disagree. You are still confusing what Richard Carrier says on his blog with uncontested fact.

Most scholars consider there to be multiple independent sources, some disagree.

Again, you are missing the point of a clear religious trend, "Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth. "

Yet all of them share things in common that are absent from the emergence of the Jesus cult: emergence in pretty much real time and explainable by a normal person with a small amount of magical mythology rather than a standard polytheistic god.

So, if Jesus was a man who was deified, would you a) expect his myths to follow cultural tropes b) not expect his myths to follow cultural tropes?

The second group is well established. Again, you haven't read any material, lectures, media and are completely unaware. That doesn't mean it isn't an established class of myth.

Actually its utility is contested, you again seem to think that your hero Richard Carrier stating something on his blog establishes it as uncontested fact and noting other scholars disagree thus constitutes "dismissing scholarship"

This is beside the point though as establishing its utility as a loosely descriptive class still doesn't establish its utility as the most meaningful category for establishing the historicity of a unique figure who also fits into many other categories.

Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (a royal with an unusual birth narrative) was viewed as a messianic supposed to usher in the Millennium, but died unexpectedly (on a hill no less) people didn't simply say "we were wrong", they believed he would be resurrected and lead the righteous poor to salvation.

Messianic figures who were expected to bring a utopian age existed in cultures from the ancient Med to ancient China to medieval Europe to 20th C figures like Hitler. All of them utilised tropes from their cultural environments to make a millenarian mythology where the chosen people will triumph over the forces of darkness.

If we look at the development of the biography of Muhammad we can see a real person becoming increasingly supernatural, being rewritten to comport to scripture and parallel the life of Moses, etc.

We have the Sibyllene Oracles which contain a mish-mash of Roman/Hellenistic, Hebrew, Gnostic and Christian myths and contain led to numerous millenarian myths based around real people (for example the Emperor Constans).

We have a religious tradition that flows from ancient Judaism to modernity that Jesus clearly fits into and contains messianic figures who were highly mythologised but also were real people.

No, not many conflicting opinions based on evidence. Only 2. Both are in the historicity field.
1) Jesus was a human Rabbi mythicized into a Greek deity because that was the trend going around.

2). Jesus was completely a mythical person/demigod to give Judaism a Greek deity because that was the local trend

Those aren’t the only 2 plausible non-supernatural historical hypotheses as they contain too many additional points.

More accurate would be:

1. Jesus was a mythologised human.
2. Jesus was a mythical figure later turned into a human.

No, you didn't explain. It uses characters from ancient Greek myths and even older.

It still has nothing to do with historicity, and was not created for the purpose of establishing historicity.

As a method of establishing any probability of mythicism for any given individual it is largely worthless.

He did, I provided an extensive list of features found on these demigods. You are just ignoring it.

When we create artificial categories, such as this case, and people within these artificial categories can be added to many other artificial yet very different categories, we should be careful about how much we assume based on being to fit them into these categories.

We could easily fit Frederick II and Muhammad into artificial categories with fictional people based on their magical abilities and Divine favour.

In both cases their mythology had to be reconstructed around an untimely death before they had delivered on their messianic promises.

We know from modern experience that when prophecies fail, people tend to double down rather than admit they are wrong.

Still not seeing the space Jesus that some unknown person invented out of scripture then some other unknown person did a switcheroo and turned him into a human without anyone remembering or even considering could have happened despite their familiarity with Jewish scripture, space jizz and “dying and rising gods” as the most parsimonious explanation.

Maybe all of the other references are forgeries or interpolations or refer to different James brother of Jesus, or maybe the majority of experts are right.

 

[Windwalker]

What does this have to do with whether Jesus' life was exemplary or even unusual?

It doesn't have anything to do with it. That was not what I was responding to. What I had been talking about was how that "love your enemies" had to do with cultivating compassion and attitudes of forgiveness. You said that did not pertain to you because you don't have that issue in your life. So my response to that was that you don't have need for guidance and wisdom, but others are not so naturally blessed as you are to not have this common human malady. So my response in response to that, not about the life of Jesus. It had to do with what the idea of love your enemies actually means.

You've been implying that that life was so impressive, a new religion was formed because of it.

I think you are overstating what I said. I simply said he was not just "ordinary", just some bloke. His impact created a movement, which of course escalated due to the influences of others. Recall I gave that stone to avalanche analogy? Right person, right place and time. It wasn't all him personally. Of course not.

I say that the religion grew because first Paul found value in it making it large enough to come to the Romans' attention, and then later, Constantine found value in it. You haven't rebutted that.

I wouldn't rebut that. I'm simply looking at the original value that Paul and others found. It wasn't nothing much at all that inspired Paul. That's what I'm saying was extraordinary.

And this itself is not different from what Jesus himself taught, or at least what was attributed to him. Recall the mustard seed parable?

Also, Christians call Jesus' life exemplary, so much so that many define Christian as being Christlike, but why?

The ideal of what he represents, what he symbolizes, which is the nature of the Divine in all of us. The ideal human. "Love your neighbor as yourself". "Love works no ill". The goal is that we are to become the Christ ourselves. "I live, and yet not I but Christ", and such language. In other words, not the desiring flesh, the human ego seeking for itself, but to transcend the flesh, transcend the ego. This is the Buddhist teaching of Enlightenment. Same thing for Christianity, just different terms and symbols.

Do you accept the Buddhist idea of Enlightenment? Just curious to know your thoughts on that?

Frankly, Jesus would have no place there. Too preachy and judgmental, not to mention detached from reality and uninterested in much that matters to me.

That actually doesn't sound like Jesus. That sounds like fundamentalist Christians. You seem to conflate the two.

But you need to have knowledge yourself first to be discerning regarding who can be trusted, and a means of evaluating what you are told.

Yes. I agree. But sadly this is one of these catch-22 situations. The spiritual novice doesn't have the toolset or experience to be discerning, and so they can easily be duped. But to gain spiritual maturity in order to not be naive, can be a matter of good fortune in finding the right teachers, or learning it the hard way from the school of hard knocks.

But I will add here, relying on critical thinking skills, is not necessarily going to get you what you need in way of discernment here. In fact, logic and reason can easily be quite convincing as an argument, but be completely wrong. As the saying goes, "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence". Or at least, it certainly can be.

As I said, a true discernment takes maturity, which comes from lived experience, not from well calculated and presented logic arguments. The only real protection is wisdom.

My fastest growth came between ages 30 and 40, and my education then was almost all reading books alone at home - books on philosophy, history, belief systems, and some mathematics (infinity, Hofstadter, Penrose) and science I missed in my formal education (cosmology, astronomy, geology, quantum science). But this is the only kind of thing I've gone to others for.

Sounds like me, between 40-50. What I know now, I most certainly did not learn in Bible college!

For me it was learning a language and a useful functional framework to take many disparate bits of knowledge, experience, and personal insights to give them some means to rationally connect all the dots. But I also came to recognize that as only half the puzzle. That was all intellectual, rational, logical, and external. It was something I could look at with the mind. But then there was developing the interior landscape as well, which added living multidimensionality to otherwise 2-D intellectual models of reality. At which point, those critical thinker, rational models took on a different role.

They were no longer relied upon as the ultimate truth-finder tools the thinking mind wanted them to be. Rather, they now became more tree like structures, upon which to hang the ornament of spirit, the jewels of lived experience on. They were functional placeholders in order to be able to look at experiences and evaluate them mentally, as opposed to the Oracle of the Divine shining the light of truth upon reality, that the rationalist mind sees them as.

That's a bit of my own personal evolution through these things.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't know that Jesus was an impactful speaker in the sense of being exemplary or attracting followers. We learn about a dozen devotees doing that during his lifetime. The Grateful Dead had thousands of people following them from venue to venue to hear their message and imbibe their culture and expressed values.

According the gospels, he also drew crowds of thousands to his concerts.

Funny you should make the comparison. In reality, teachers like this would have been seen as a form of entertainment and inspiration, like going to a concert today. Storytellers were the big thing. Singers of songs, they would call them.

So as a teacher of parables, these were not just short like 30 seconds stories like we read on the pages of the gospels. Those are just the 'highlights'. The actual parables would last for hours, with audience interactions. They were an "event". They just didn't have the light shows and pyrotechnic displays. Although, you could say the 'loaves and fishes' was a bit like that.

Does anything Jesus said compare to this? This is spirituality without spirits (gods):

Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again
Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men

Ooo, that sounds like supernatural woo woo, a fountain not made by the hands of men. That's sound like appealing to wishful thinking and believing in god beings. You see, I can choose to read this cynically too if I wish.

There is a road, no simple highway
Between the dawn and the dark of night
And if you go, no one may follow
That path is for your steps alone

Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow

You who choose to lead must follow
But if you fall you fall alone
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home

Actually, in all seriousness, this very much sounds like what Jesus would teach. Care to see me do a parallel translation? Still water: still small voice, meeting God is silence; Those who choose to lead must follow: those who exalt themselves shall be made low, those who wish to lead let him become the servant of all. Etc.

I know what love is. And I know the limits of my ability to express love, which consumes scarce resources including time when manifest.

I think Love is a deep limitless ocean, and how deep that goes for someone depends on many factors. This is not to say that someone doesn't know what love is at all, just because they might not have ever tasted the fullness of the ocean swallowed in a single gulp, to paraphrase a zen koan. To recognize there is more to Love is not to say that those who haven't tasted the Ocean like that, have not drunk any of its waters at all.

The goal to me, is to be that Love, that Infinite Wellspring of Life itself in all things. Having tasted that in a single gulp, there is a longing to return to that and become that. That's the nature of this for me.

I also know who is worthy of that love and who is not.

To me, it is simply not a matter of worthiness at all. I see Love as unconditional, not being worthy of it. That's like imaging it only rains because you've been a good person and deserve it.

You keep referring to trust when discussing love, and yes, I do not trust an enemy (nor a stranger), but that is not why I don't express love to enemies. I do, however, express love to strangers with charitable donations of time and money, but that goes to them, not enemies.

I am separating having a loving compassion to all, from personal trust relationships. I don't trust those who are a threat to me. But I can have compassion in my heart towards them, rather than harboring hatred. That is what "love your enemies" really means. I've explained this.

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps it explains why you feel that forgiveness is important to you. It lack is accompanied by perpetual dysphoria until you forgive.

I wouldn't call it as a conscious dissatisfaction with life because of unforgiveness, that my life is miserable because I held onto resentments. I've certainly had a great deal of happiness in my life. But, and this is hard to explain, but if that goal is Freedom, in the sense of what I describe above about the Wellspring of Life itself in my very own being, fully Realized, there are many hidden obstacles in all of us that create blockages to the flow of that.

There are things inside of us, that block that openness. Think of it like grease and hair balls in your plumbing. Resentments can be pushed down out of conscious thought into the recesses of our psyches, and even if we cannot consciousness see them, they are there clogging the plumbing. The greater the flow of water you desire, greater water pressure, cleaner purity of the water flow, the more 'housekeeping' you need to do. Especially if there are years old resentments, towards others, towards yourself, etc. Wounds, pains, old habits, and so forth. The list is enorums for most.

But some may just little things and not big things. Some may think there isn't much there, but unbeknownst to them there is an entire continent buried down there. They haven't yet peaked inside to see the actual condition down there. (I'd say this is more the norm).

What comes to mind here is that Zen saying,

Great doubt, great Awakening,
Little doubt, little Awakening,
No doubt, no Awakening.

Another saying comes to me that applies here. "Religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have been there".

While someone may have little struggles, that's great. The demon is kept quiet in the darkness inside. But for those go down and fight the devil in the desert of their own inner landscape, it seems they may realize more of that Freedom. Great doubt, great Awakening. Great struggle, great Freedom.

To expand on when forgiveness is deserved, it is only in the presence of remorse, which is more than regret.

I do not see forgiveness as a matter of being deserved. You forgive others so you no longer hold onto the negative feelings in yourself. Besides, it's not really forgiveness if it is earned is it? Does the bank say, we will forgive you your debt if you pay it off?

I am sensing in this discussion that our ideas of what love are is what I commonly run into with others, especially with certain Christians. They see love as something that you to be worthy of, that is is not unconditional, but conditional instead. They see unconditional love as overly permissive, just flinging the doors open and letting people take advantage of you. I hear that same mindset in our discussion. Is this the source of disconnect here, why you think love your enemies means let them take advantage of you?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Persians believed that first in their religion.

I find we can trace mankind's religious family tree all the way back to ancient Babylon - Genesis chapter 11 from Nimrod - Gen. 10:8
As the people migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their religious ideas and practices and spread them not only to Persia but world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
This is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas even in today's religions.
So, yes the Persians would have known about Eden but that does Not mean Eden came from Persian beginnings.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i Faith has always been a minority faith. It takes a majority to force immoral beliefs upon others. Baha'i has not had an opportunity to fail yet.

Who determines what are immoral beliefs?
How do you know it is going to fail?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God cheated. HE hardened the guy’s heart.

No, God allowed Pharaoh enough rope, so to speak, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart - Exodus 8:32
Pharaoh's hardened his own heart by his hardened response to Moses and Aaron .
Each of the 10 plagues humiliated one of the Egyptian gods.
When Pharaoh saw there was relief (respite KJV) Pharaoh hardened his own heart - Exodus 8:15
Not only did Pharaoh harden his own heart so did most of the Egyptians - 1st Samuel 6:6

 

[Trailblazer]

What are the angels in Heaven preparing for _______________ What qualities are angels preparing for _______________

The angels in Heaven are not preparing for anything. They are already Holy souls so they don't need to acquire any qualities.

Besides John 14:19 in verse 18 B please notice Jesus says, " I am coming to you. "
So, it will Not be a physical coming but as Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15 informs us that the 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked.

So I guess you mean the Words that are in the New Testament?

Yes, Jesus finished the work God gave him to do but that does Not mean his followers would Not continue what Jesus completed - John 17:18
Jesus made God's name known and says he will make it known at John 17:26

Yes, I expect that Christians will continue to preach the Gospel, even though it has been preached to all nations by the mid-19th century.

Yes, Isaiah 35 is about when Christ returns at the end of the age ( coming end of this system of things )
Meaning the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as described at Matthew 25:31-34,37 (Isaiah 35:2)
This is why we are all invited to pray to God for Jesus to come ! - see Revelation 22:20
Jesus to come and carry out Isaiah 11:34-4; Rev. 19:14-15 and then bring ' healing ' on Earth - Rev. 22:2
Healing to the point that No one will say, " I am sick......" - Isaiah 33:24
No one sick also means No more death on Earth - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8

Yes, I believe Isaiah 35 is about what would happen when the Christ returned at the end of the age.
I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God, as described in Isaiah 35:2.
All the prophecies in Isaiah 35 and all the other Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah, which means there is nothing left to wait for. The fulfillment of all the prophecies is delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Isaiah 35 King James Version (KJV)​

35 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.​

2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.​

3 Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees.​

4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.​

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.​

6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.​

7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.​

8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.​

9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:​

10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.​

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I could say the same about you...hmm? I agree with cOLTER about grudges to an extent.

God is the master of grudges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who determines what are immoral beliefs?
How do you know it is going to fail?

Do you need a god for your morals? Based upon rational goals one can form rational arguments for morals.

 

[Trailblazer]

God is the master of grudges.

No, God is the master of forgiveness. Humans are the masters of grudges.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you need a god for your morals? Based upon rational goals one can form rational arguments for morals.

I do not need a God for my morals but some people do.
A murderer might believe that his goals are very rational and make a rational argument for why he needs to kill someone.
I just saw that again last night on a true crime show on TV. People can rationalize anything they want to do.
Do you see the problem?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Ummm, I'm quite sure that Christians differentiate between witchcraft and prayer.

Many ancient art pieces have Jesus with a wand, so …

 

[dybmh]

Many ancient art pieces have Jesus with a wand, so …

... so, it depends on the artist, it depends on when, it depends on the art itself.

 

[dybmh]

Many ancient art pieces have Jesus with a wand, so …

Oh! stuff like this? That looks like a Yad. A pointer. It's something a torah scholar ( or a scholar wanna-be ) would carry and wave about.

Yad - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[nPeace]

No, it's skipping most meaningful questions. I don't care for it because it's engaging in nothing. You are reaching to make silly accusations.
What actually happened is I led with "we don't know the source"

No sir. This is important because this is not the first time you make claims as if they are facts, when they are not.
If you really mean what you say, then say what you mean. The double tongue only tends to deceive, and at the same time, promotes the claim.

No, no person knows. But it was written after the Gospels. So you want to say it's correct and extra-biblical of Christianity or is just something he picked up from someone.

I am not interested in when it was written. That's irrelevant.
The point is made, that a... actually, more than one historian mentioned Jesus. That's the point. Fullstop.

You have 2 options:

1) It's correct. Jesus was crucified by PP. But he was a man because it's also a harmless superstition and a most mischievous superstition. Remember, he's the best historian of the time, right? He wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

2)it's not correct. Which offers no extra evidence.

First of all, I don't know why you keep singing that tune about the best historian, when no one - not even scholars, said that.
Second, Jesus was human, and I don't know why that's even part of this conversation, since the OP is not about whether or not Jesus was human.
These options are meaningless and irrelevant to this thread.

And we have other Gods he's writing about, known fictitious Gods. So now we have evidence he writes about fictional deities. He already said Christianity was also fiction?

So exactly what sounds valuable to you at this point regarding Tacitus, who you are pushing as if he lends any shred of credibility to your superstition?

What does this have to do with this thread?

You thought wrong. Go back to your post

• #1,203

and look at your words. You are directly implying that since Tacitus is "widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars." his quote is NOT " just 200th-hand hearsay likely gotten from stories he heard Christians repeating in Rome." but actual proper historical information.

No. Look at the quote again, and follow the discussion, rather than what you are focusing on.
The quote is no different tothe other, as it says in no uncertain terms, that your scholars regard Tacitus as one of the best Roman historians.
I'm digging that point in for @Thrillobyte's benefit, and since you are here....
You see, you are the ones who look to your scholars, and appeal to their authority, so I am making a point that you disregard your scholars on this score. Why?
That is the point of my quotes.

If you were following the discussion, you would know that scholarly opinions do not affect my position, one way or other.
I made that clear from the outset... and if you had been following the discussion. I stated clearly, why even referred to any of these historians.

So, yes, you are actually doing the exact thing you are now pretending you are not. YOu are using those credentials about Tacitus to say he is correct and is presenting information about Jesus that is extra-biblical and "a threat to atheist worldviews".

You lost your way. Perhaps read my posts, and not yours.

Hilarious. He says it's a harmless superstition? So if he is correct, as you are arguing, it's a silly made up cult.
Wow, "a harmless superstition", blowing my atheist mind worldview so much?

Are you talking to yourself now?
What's that all about?

EXACTLY (all Christians I'm looking at you)....clearly we have RECORDS of him telling us it's “a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome,....."

So do not be swayed by fundamentalist agenda! It's a bunch of made up stories. As Tacitus says, and as you argue for his properly researched input.

You lost me. What does this have to do with historians mentioning Jesus?
Oh wait. Are you now saying he did mention Jesus?
Can we get a straight answer at this point?

No opinions on Tacitus from 2 PhD scholars who actually read him and know FAR more than any of us. A person interested in what is actually true would pay attention.
A person who only cares about their personal "truth" will label them all "infallible"

Well there you go. Labelling them as such, in your mind, is the same thing.

Ehrman finds it to be information from a non-Christin and Carrier points out since we cannot know it isn't evidence. The majority of scholars don't know the source. That is it. Fundamentalists like to pretend it's confirmation Jesus was real while at the same time taking the "harmless superstition" and cherry-picking that right off the tree. Isn't it fun to create your reality, what's true is whatever you want!

I can answer to any question, or find out. Once I thought questions might lead to evidence of the supernatural. Doesn't look that way anymore. I'm always looking.

You didn't answer the question.

nPeace said that it's irrelevant whether or not Tacitus had any documentation to reference when he wrote his infamous passage on the Christians. In other words, nPeace feels it would be perfectly fine for Tacitus to willy-nilly make up details on the fly when writing historical treatises--as long as it supported his contention the divine Jesus was real, of course. I think this demonstrates the level of scholarship he's willing to sink to in defense of his religion.

Did nPeace say that, or did nPeace say that finding the source of a historian is irrelevant - irrelevant to the question of the OP.

So, someone claims there is no evidence for Kryptonite, They find some, in a cave. Unless they state the source, the Kryptonite does not exist?
That's exactly what is being played out here.

Scientist don't even follow such a clearly biased position, when doing science.
The scientists will say, we have the evidence. It likely came from... However, no honest scientists would dogmatically claim it came from...
They would consider the most likely source, yes.
How often do we read, "likely", "probably", "might have"

Here is what your experts have documented, from collected data. Them... not me.
Sources of Tacitus
For the period from Augustus to Vespasian, Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment. It has been noted that the work of Aufidius Bassus and its continuation by Pliny the Elder covered these years; both historians also treated the German wars. Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus (on Tiberius), Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus (on Nero), and Vipstanus Messalla (on the year 69). He also turned, as far as he felt necessary, to the Senate’s records, the official journal, and such firsthand information as a speech of Claudius, the personal memoirs of Agrippina the Younger, and the military memoirs of the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. For Vespasian’s later years and the reigns of Titus and Domitian, he must have worked more closely from official records and reports.

In the light of his administrative and political experience, Tacitus in the Histories was able to interpret the historical evidence for the Flavian period more or less directly.

It's writen in more than one place... for general public audience.
What do you think about that? Rubbish?

 

[nPeace]

Especially when you look at these passages:

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Deuteronomy 20:18

And

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword (Joshua 6:21).

And

“Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies,[1] oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:3

So it's not surprising that someone as despicable as William Lane Craig actually justifies God's slaughter of thousands of innocent children and babies

Craig: "God has the right to take human lives. And God taking these children's lives meant their salvation."

So in William Lane Craig's universe it's perfectly justifiable for a mother like Andrea Yates to murder her five little children because it saved them from going to hell. In other words, God was doing the kids a favor by slaughtering them.

Only in Christianity!

I saw something similar to that a few times..
Take rabies, for example... the outbreak was contained by isolating affected herds and pre-emptively shooting any deer showing symptoms.
The Chinese went berserk. Rabies deaths in China lead to slaughter of 50,000 dogs. I could hear myself. Not my dog. Nooooooooooooooooooo.

What you quoted in those verses shows that God was pretty thorough in containing any spread of what he considered dangerous for the human race.
In his mercy, some were spared. Even the Israelites.
Just imagine the patience and tolerance God had, in putting up with evil for centuries.

 

[joelr]

nPeace said that it's irrelevant whether or not Tacitus had any documentation to reference when he wrote his infamous passage on the Christians. In other words, nPeace feels it would be perfectly fine for Tacitus to willy-nilly make up details on the fly when writing historical treatises--as long as it supported his contention the divine Jesus was real, of course. I think this demonstrates the level of scholarship he's willing to sink to in defense of his religion.

He doesn't really do scholarship, I have presented various amounts on different topics and it's always hand waved off because it doesn't align with religious beliefs. This is just a rare occasion but I cannot figure out why?
If Tacitus heard it from a source that was wrong it isn't extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus.
If Tacitus heard it from a source that was correct then it's evidence a man was crucified and the religion is a harmless superstition and he also calls it evil. "The first source of evil (Christianity) first broke out in Judea."

I suspect the apologist site it was read from failed to mention the part about evil and harmless superstition?
Tacitus is the "greatest Roman historian" so I think the takeaway from that is he checks his sources whatever they are and we can feel confident Pontius Pilate executed a man who was part of a harmless (and evil) superstition.
But we don't know where he got this from, it could just be from someone who believes the Gospel stories. Tacitus clearly does not buy into them.

I think the best historian would know if one of these recent demigods, out of many many demigods, was for once actually real.

 

[Colt]

LoL! The man that they say didn't exist has had more influence over the world than any other man that has ever existed! ​