There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Trailblazer]

I can't comment on the probability that a god exists. If one does, it is hidden.

That's true. God is hidden.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I still have to watch this video, but just stumbled upon it in my suggested feed and thought it pertinent to put here:

I've been following the YouTube channel Crecganforg for a couple years now. He compares many religions around the world and the similarities of traditions and motifs. I find his analysis quite insightful:

https://www.youtube.com/@Crecganford

He says the first reference of Jesus is Josephus which he believes was written in 60 AD. But he does not believe they are authentic, and has many blogs explaining this stance, as well as some info in his book.

Next is Tacitus in 1 AD. Which again he does not believe is authentic.

Everything else is scripture...

------------------

I don't know. I know there is no way to know.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

lol, I wonder if scientists are investigating Einstein's brain which apparently is in a container.

I did hear that Einstein's brain is a larger brain.
As with Jesus' dead friend (John 11:43) Einstein will hear Jesus' LOUD voice on the last day (John 6:40) Resurrection Day when Jesus governs over Earth during his Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for a thousand years.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

lol, I wonder if scientists are investigating Einstein's brain which apparently is in a container.

What the!!! How did I not know this?!
How Einstein's stolen brain ended up in a jar of Kraft Miracle Whip mayonnaise.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did hear that Einstein's brain is a larger brain.
As with Jesus' dead friend (John 11:43) Einstein will hear Jesus' LOUD voice on the last day (John 6:40) Resurrection Day when Jesus governs over Earth during his Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for a thousand years.

Yes! He'll have a lot of work to do, though. (He had a few problems in his personal life...) So we'll see.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes! He'll have a lot of work to do, though. (He had a few problems in his personal life...) So we'll see.

Yes, 'we will see' because there 'will be ' a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous ( just and unjust KJV) - Acts 24:15
The righteous will need to remain righteous and the unrighteous to become righteous and remain righteous.
I like what Einstein said: that he was neither especially clever nor especially gifted. He was only very, very curious.
So, since an inquiring mind 'wants to know' and it seems Einstein had an inquiring mind, he will want to take in more knowledge of God.

 

[leroy]

I can't comment on the probability that a god exists. If one does, it is hidden.

You have one book describing what others are said to have seen and said. You place more faith in it than I do. I don't believe it just because I read it.

What are books evidence of apart from the fact that somebody wrote them and maybe believed what they wrote? Nothing else is true about the world just because we read it in a book. I don't accept anything as fact without sufficient empiric support, especially extraordinary claims.

Multiple independent sources aren't enough, and we don't even have that - just the claim of that. I've already told you that. You needn't offer it as evidence for a resurrection again.

We think differently. I want to know what is actual, and my method is empiricism, so I require compelling evidence before believing. You want to argue for what is not known to be impossible being the case. There COULD be a god, and if so, miracles like resurrections MIGHT be possible, and people MIGHT have witnessed one. It will never be convincing. You would need more, and there is no more.

Well this is ancient history……… nearly all you can aspire to have are books, usually by written by non witnesses. Having multiple independent sources for an event is usually enough to establish an uncontroversial truth.

If this is not good enough to convince your, then you should be rejecting all history (and a big part of science)

 

[leroy]

I need a link to it. Apologists are infamous for lying by quote mining. A quote with no link so that people can check your claims is worthless. That you did not link your source tells us that it was not from a reliable source. It is worthless.

Again the primary source is a book,

The Resurrection of Jesus: Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden: 9780800627928: Amazon.com: Books

The Resurrection of Jesus [Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Resurrection of Jesus

www.amazon.com

What else do you want?............

That you did not link your source tells us that it was not from a reliable source. It is worthless.

Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement. “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was…

beliefmap.org

that is the source where I found the quote. (since I dont have the book)

So what is next? Are you going to call the author of a that source a Liar without any justification??????

No, that is not the case.

No, there is no need for me to refute a claim that was never properly supported. You still do not understand the burden of proof. You had no source. In this day and age there is no excuse not to link a source for a claim. Especially on an internet debate. Until you provide a reliable source Hitchens' Razor applies.

Ok you have the links………… then what?

Are you going to refute them? Are you going to expose the reasons for why you think that creed is wrongly dated?..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well this is ancient history……… nearly all you can aspire to have are books, usually by written by non witnesses.

If all one has is testimony, it should be taken with a grain of salt as I do most ancient history lacking other kinds of evidence.

Having multiple independent sources for an event is usually enough to establish an uncontroversial truth.

Incontrovertible is the word I believe you want. Multiple independent sources increase the likelihood that the account is an honest interpretation of something actually witnessed.

If this is not good enough to convince you, then you should be rejecting all history (and a big part of science)

What I believe is believed tentatively, that is, only to the degree supported by the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence, and which is amenable to revision pending new evidence. Did Caesar say, "veni, vidi, vici"? Maybe. Did he cross the Rubicon? Probably. Was he emperor of Rome? Almost certainly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again the primary source is a book,

The Resurrection of Jesus: Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden: 9780800627928: Amazon.com: Books

The Resurrection of Jesus [Gerd Ludemann, Gerd Luedemann, John Bowden] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Resurrection of Jesus

www.amazon.com

What else do you want?............

Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement. “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was…

beliefmap.org

that is the source where I found the quote. (since I dont have the book)

So what is next? Are you going to call the author of a that source a Liar without any justification??????


Ok you have the links………… then what?

Are you going to refute them? Are you going to expose the reasons for why you think that creed is wrongly dated?..

You are not fooling anyone. You do not own that book. You got that from a lying site. Sites that are known for lying by quote mining are not valid sources of quotes.

Find a valid sources and then we can talk. Otherwise with no links so that others can confirm that quote is not taken wildly out of context it is of no use in a debate.

 

[leroy]

You are not fooling anyone. You do not own that book.

Yes, as I said before, I dont have the book.......if you eould have read the very post that you are quoting , you eould have known that.

You got that from a lying site. Sites that are known for lying by quote mining are not valid sources of quotes.

Well I already shared the link to the site........it is your burden to show that the authors of the site are lying .

Find a valid sources and then we can talk. Otherwise with no links so that others can confirm that quote is not taken wildly out of context it is of no use in a debate.

Ok then show to everybody thatbthe quote was taken out of context..............will you ever support your accusations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, as I said before, I dont have the book.......if you eould have read the very post that you are quoting , you eould have known that.

Then you admitted to not have a valid source. You aren't too good at this, are you?

Well I already shared the link to the site........it is your burden to show that the authors of the site are lying .

No, you did not share the source of your quote. That was a source that would enable me to buy the book. I didn't see a check to cover my costs if I wanted that book.. Perhaps that was another oversight on your part.

Ok then show to everybody thatbthe quote was taken out of context..............will you ever support your accusations?

LMAO! Nope, once again you do not understand the burden of proof. You claimed that quote was in the bool. But your provided no means for others to check your claim. Remember?


Now you may be a bit slower than normal for you today, but how did you get that supposed quote when you do not have that book yourself? You owned up to not owning that book. That is a statement that you did not get that quote, where did your quote come from? You and I both know that it was a lying source.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

, but how did you get that supposed quote when you do not have that book yourself? You owned up to not owning that book. That is a statement that you did not get that quote, where did your quote come from? You and I both know that it was a lying source.

In his defense, I often times would like to reference sources that are locked behind the ¹paywall of a science journal or such.

Regarding having a quote from a book that he does not have, maybe it's an audio book?

¹Edit: corrected to "paywall"

 

[Subduction Zone]

In his defense, I often times would like to reference sources that are locked behind the ¹paywall of a science journal or such.

Regarding having a quote from a book that he does not have, maybe it's an audio book?

¹Edit: corrected to "paywall"

I do not think that is the case. If he got it that way there would be no shame in revealing his source. If he got it from a known dishonest source then revealing it would also tell us that it was not very reliable. Christian apologists have no qualms about Lying For Jesus. One of their favorite tricks is to quotemine. That is usually done with a source that opposes them, but by quoting out of context they can make it look as if they agree with the apologists. That he would not name and link his source was very telling.

Of course it does not mean that the quote is wrong. It only means that it is worthless for a debate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no illusions that joelr will hear me, he disagrees before he considers what I say. He's "decidedly" in opposition to the existence of the Universal Father. These exercises with Atheists are just like doing the cross-word puzzle in the NYT.

I believe that salvation is by the faith based realization in son-ship with God and the responsibility that comes with being a loyal son of God.

I'm not Lutheran, I'm just a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the Urantia Book revelation of 1955

Perhaps if you provided evidence for your claims as opposed to giant walls of text, us stupid atheists might find your argument convincing. As it stands, it just looks like preaching to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok so for simplicity I will only deal with stuff cocerning your hypotheiss


That is easy to falsify

1 the earless creed dated within a 1 or 2 years after the crusifixtion already talk about a resurrection.

2 Paul was already talking about the resurrection, he knew the apostles and many other first generation Christians. Not to mention that he also experienced a resurrection event,.

My point is that it is obvious that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection............ so yes we know and we can show that there was "talk of resurection" shorlty after Jesus died.



That is very unlikely, the apostles suffered and where willing to die, for the truth of the resurrection, … if this was just as myth they would have known that. (in fact they would have to be the authors of that myth)

Nobody would die for a lie that they themselves invented.



It´s a correct prediction.

If Jesus really resurrected, we would expect to find an empty tomb…………………….if the alleged resurrection was a hallucination or a lie or a myth them tomb would not expected to be empty

I am not saying that this fact itself proves the resurrection, but is part of a cumulative case.





Well if you aspire to show that your hypothesis explains all the data, you do have to invoke many “new” things .

Like someone somehow stole the body, the apostles had hidden and unknown motives to lie and then die in the name of that lie, somehow Christianity flourished without the resurrection, etc.

So I don’t see how your hypothesis is more parsimonious.

All I am saying is:

1 The existence of God is Possible (and not veeery unlikely)

2 if God exist miracles every once in a while would be probable and expected to happen (or at least not unexpected)

3 if miracles occure , resurrection are not so unlikely

4 we have plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection, for example we have multiple independent sources proclaiming that event, we have an empty tomb, we have the rise of a new religion etc.

So the resurrection hypothesis comes from accepting those 4 premises, ……. I know that I can´t prove conclusively some of those premises, but none of them seems “obviously wrong”

Premise 1 would be granted by agnostics and even week atheist…………….. only strong atheist (those who affirm that God certainly doesn’t exist) would deny point 1) But beign a strong atheist, has a burden prove that in my opionion is imposible to carry

What specifically do you mean by "talk of resurrection?" Specific quotes please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well this is ancient history……… nearly all you can aspire to have are books, usually by written by non witnesses. Having multiple independent sources for an event is usually enough to establish an uncontroversial truth.

If this is not good enough to convince your, then you should be rejecting all history (and a big part of science)

Why do you believe you have "multiple independent sources" for a resurrection event?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you believe you have "multiple independent sources" for a resurrection event?

Because it is the claim of his bogus sources.

 

[Colt]

Perhaps if you provided evidence for your claims as opposed to giant walls of text, us stupid atheists might find your argument convincing. As it stands, it just looks like preaching to me.

God is within, God is a subjective reality which can't be proven in a subjective way. There is no way around this.

Another way of stating this is that if, Jesus suddenly appeared to you at a coffee shop and the two of you talked for an hour, answering your many questions after which he vanished, you would be unable to provide proof of the encounter to others. I believe that Atheists already know this fact but on forums such as this they demand proofs knowing that no proof will be forthcoming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is within, God is a subjective reality which can't be proven in a subjective way. There is no way around this.

That doesn't appear to make sense.
I mean, it sounds like you just said there is no evidence backing up your claims

Another way of stating this is that if, Jesus suddenly appeared to you at a coffee shop and the two of you talked for an hour, answering your many questions after which he vanished, you would be unable to provide proof of the encounter to others. I believe that Atheists already know this fact but on forums such as this they demand proofs knowing that no proof will be forthcoming.

Atheists know that if they meet a person, that person exists. Yes. I could take a photo of said person. I could get the phone number of said person. There are actual ways to verify stuff, you know. I have actually spoken to people that appeared to have "vanished" once I turned away. But I realize that there isn't any evidence that people actually vanish into thin air and so concluding that's what happened without further investigation would be folly on my part.

When I hear extraordinary claims from a random person claiming to know things that he admittedly can't demonstrate in any way to anybody else in any way, I'm skeptical, as I think everybody should be, lest we end up believing in a bunch of things that aren't true.