There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

It is dishonest (and pathetic) that you are accusing the author of the source for being a liar without supporting that claim

Multiple other sources have the same source (or claim the same thing) this includes Wikipedia……………so unless you want to invoke a crazy conspiracy theory

Oh my oh my oh my. Such extreme projection. I did explain, but as usual you ignored that. Go back and read the post again.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

OK.
From what I read, Josephus was born in Jerusalem, which was a Roman province from 6 to 132 CE. He was born into a priestly family around 37 C.E. I'll stop there for a moment until I hear your comment. I try to be very careful about what I accept and so that is why I said "from what I read..." There is an interesting point about this, so hopefully we can talk about it peacefully.

So, according to this, Josephus wasn't even born yet, to report/record the crucifixion in question? Am I picking up what you're laying down?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, according to this, Josephus wasn't even born yet, to report/record the crucifixion in question? Am I picking up what you're laying down?

To be fair, though Josephus was in no way a witness he was a decent historian. He mainly wrote history about other issues. Jesus at best earned a passing mention from him. At least one of his works appears to have been altered to when it mentions Jesus. And then he of course showed (among others) that Luke's Nativity was mythical. The author of Luke had a ten year difference in birth date from Matthew, and a totally bogus reason that Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

To be fair, though Josephus was in no way a witness he was a decent historian. He mainly wrote history about other issues. Jesus at best earned a passing mention from him. At least one of his works appears to have been altered to when it mentions Jesus. And then he of course showed (among others) that Luke's Nativity was mythical. The author of Luke had a ten year difference in birth date from Matthew, and a totally bogus reason that Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem.

I've read that the 3 magi/wisemen and the star they followed was likely some major astronomical event, none of which match the years of the nativity. I can't remember where I heard/read it... History Channel for all I know, lol, so take it with a saltlick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read that the 3 magi/wisemen and the star they followed was likely some major astronomical event, none of which match the years of the nativity. I can't remember where I heard/read it... History Channel for all I know, lol, so take it with a saltlick.

And then some. Since stars do not guide people as written in that story it is best to take that story as a myth too..

Jesus of Nazareth was probably born there. The attempts to get him born in Bethlehem were just done to "fulfil prophecy".

 

[lukethethird]

I don't see what your point is

We don't know when or where these stories were written nor by whom so what can we possibly know about any first generation beliefs about a resurrection besides the fact that resurrections are impossible but make for somewhat interesting stories if the reader is so inclined?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

We only have religious texts, there are no non religious texts that tell us that there were Christians in the first century.

I would presume, this is because the ruling hierarchies in any nation of civilization I can think of, was that of the 'priesthood' of that culture such as shaman, seers, magi, priests, and prophets. Even in systems with a singular ruler at the top, they were often considered the holiest person, their position being 'divine right' mandated by God.

The only scribes were employed by the state so were all obligated to do everything with religiosity and compelled to favor the current ruling body when making records. I can only imagine how tedious this must make it to sift through historical records and determine what is fictional or real.

Personally, I'd lie and keep my head if I were a scribe back then, so I haven't one iota of blame for them... I'd be like:

"King Such-N-Such was 25' tall and bare-handedly wrestled a bull elephant to the ground by himself, as a toddler!! He wooed every single woman on the planet by the mere mention of his name!! It was his bellow that caused the Earth's plates to begin shifting!! Give thanks to King Such-N-Such for falling from the stars and gracing Earth with his magnanimous compassion!!!" - Mark the Honest ​

 

[YoursTrue]

So, according to this, Josephus wasn't even born yet, to report/record the crucifixion in question? Am I picking up what you're laying down?

I'm not ready to lay down anything. I am saying that Josephus, yes, was not born yet to report that he saw Jesus, or lived while Jesus lived, that is correct. Jesus died before Josephus was born. Josephus apparently was born about 4 years after Jesus was killed.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, according to this, Josephus wasn't even born yet, to report/record the crucifixion in question? Am I picking up what you're laying down?

OK, so let's go on. Jerusalem was a Roman province during that time. I am going to try and go over this point by point. Initially Josephus was against the Roman empire and fought in the first Jewish-Roman wr as a general of a Jewish army but surrendered in 67 to the Roman army led by Vespasian after the six-week battle of Yodfat, a town in northern Israel.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I'm not ready to lay down anything. I am saying that Josephus, yes, was not born yet to report that he saw Jesus, or lived while Jesus lived, that is correct. Jesus died before Josephus was born. Josephus apparently was born about 4 years after Jesus was killed.

What I find intriguing, is how an individual was born and then died around the age of thirty years, all within a period of time between the years 1BCE to ¹1CE with no year 0 in between.

Eat your heart out, Benjamin Button!

Edit: ¹edited from BC to CE

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

OK, so let's go on. Jerusalem was a Roman province during that time. I am going to try and go over this point by point. Initially Josephus was against the Roman empire and fought in the first Jewish-Roman wr as a general of a Jewish army but surrendered in 67 to the Roman army led by Vespasian after the six-week battle of Yodfat, a town in northern Israel.

Hmm... So, it's possible the Romans compelled Flavius Josephus to validate the claim of resurrection? This type of propaganda is used to this day, and I wouldn't doubt it was used before Rome.

If for no other reason than enflaming the Temple priests, who were not fond of the rhetoric being pushed by the proponents of the new Christian faith. Psychological warfare 101, a disconcerted enemy is more prone to making strategic mistakes.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I find intriguing, is how an individual was born and then died around the age of thirty years, all within a period of time between the years 1BCE to 1BC with no year 0 in between.

Eat your heart out, Benjamin Button!

I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean about 30 years between 1 BCE and 1 BC? Yes, there is no 0 year, that's clear. But can you explain what you mean by 1 BCE to 1 BC with no year 0 in between? And how does this relate to your statement that someone died at 30 who lived from 1 BCE to 1 BC?

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm... So, it's possible the Romans compelled Flavius Josephus to validate the claim of resurrection? This type of propaganda is used to this day, and I wouldn't doubt it was used before Rome.

If for no other reason than enflaming the Temple priests, who were not fond of the rhetoric being pushed by the proponents of the new Christian faith. Psychological warfare 101, a disconcerted enemy is more prone to making strategic mistakes.

I want to get to that point you're making, but I'm wondering about the statement you made about 30 years and 1 BCE - 1 BC first.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean about 30 years between 1 BCE and 1 BC? Yes, there is no 0 year, that's clear. But can you explain what you mean by 1 BCE to 1 BC with no year 0 in between? And how does this relate to your statement that someone died at 30 who lived from 1 BCE to 1 BC?

It's my understanding was that BC represents the year of Jesus' birth, and AD represents the year of his death? I am confused, or mistaken. One or the other.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Mark Charles Compton it's getting a bit late, my eyes are closing, perhaps we can continue peacefully if possible soon enough?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's my understanding was that BC represents the year of Jesus' birth, and AD represents the year of his death? I am confused, or mistaken. One or the other.

I said it is late and it is. I'll have to do some research on dates, you can do it also, but BCE and CE are not always in everybody's recognition BC and AD. Depends on who is doing the date processing because different cultures can have different dates. But we can look at it later, although it's hard for me to understand how you would say 1 BCE and 1 BC. later perhaps...

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

although it's hard for me to understand how you would say 1 BCE and 1 BC.

Oh crud, I meant "BCE and CE." My apologies.

 

[joelr]

Jesus according to those overly serious, pious men who wrote and rewrote about Jesus.

156:2.8 (1736.5) Jesus greatly enjoyed the keen sense of humor which these gentiles exhibited. It was the sense of humor displayed by Norana, the Syrian woman, as well as her great and persistent faith, that so touched the Master’s heart and appealed to his mercy. Jesus greatly regretted that his people—the Jews—were so lacking in humor. He once said to Thomas: “My people take themselves too seriously; they are just about devoid of an appreciation of humor. The burdensome religion of the Pharisees could never have had origin among a people with a sense of humor. They also lack consistency; they strain at gnats and swallow camels.”

Are you actually sourcing fiction made up by an independent writer with no degrees in any relevant fields of study? That is your argument?

 

[joelr]

Translation: you were able to tunnel out of religion.

I'm sure that you understand that he assumes that a god exists, a god so irresistible, that anybody who walks away from the religion never knew his god. What else can he think if he is beyond questioning the existence of his god?

My story is similar; I also tunneled out of Christianity, and I get the same thing from the faithful - you were never a Christian. Maybe they were correct, if by Christian they mean somebody able to recognize that the religion was false and able to muster up the fortitude to leave it - not an easy thing.

When I was a new Christian, I agreed to suspend disbelief. I was already somewhat trained in critical thought (I had been to university for a while before dropping out and enlisting in the military), and was able to see the incongruency in the doctrine, but this did not cause cognitive dissonance, as I has agreed to suspend disbelief in order to test out this worldview and see if it became more coherent with time, the way a person might wear a new pair of shoes that don't fit quite right to see if they begin to feel more comfortable after being walked in a while. That never happened, and evidence surfaced that this religion was false, so I left it with great difficulty. I found myself praying to a god for a full year whose existence I no longer believed in for a sign whether I was making an error.

But I never lost the ability to evaluate evidence and make decisions based in it. If I had, I'd still be in that cocoon. And that is what is meant by me never knowing the spirit or never having been a Christian. It means I could do that. It means that I could still experience cognitive dissonance over contradictions between evidence and dogma (think critically). Suspending disbelief didn't cause me to lose that ability.

He is now sourcing modern age fiction from people claiming to have found secret writings from Atlantis and that type stuff. There is nowhere to go with this. Once one starts sourcing the Gia Channel and ancient Atlantian secret knowledge about alien races who seeded Earth, the standards of evidence are too far gone.

 

[joelr]

Because of belonging to a recognisable class of historical figures tied to recognisable religious movements that have emerged over many centuries in many different cultures.

Jesus belongs to a class of fictional beings. Only Hellenistic cultures had savior deities.

"All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?

They also have baptism rituals, Eucharist tradition and are a very distinct group. Only in nations invaded by Hellenistic Greeks.

The extent to which that is the best way to look at it is debatable, but doesn’t matter too much for this point unless you think a deified human would be unlikely to take on some of the characteristics of the divinities in their cultural environment.

Yes there could have been a man who was used, the evidence is 3 to 1 in favor of total myth according to the latest historicity study done by a PhD in the field. This looked at all of the evidence. It has nothing to do with what a non-expert "thinks" about a defied human becoming mythified.

No as we wouldn’t expect such a god to be seen as a god pretty close to his purported lifetime.

Wholesale fabrications seem to emerge in different time scales whereas deified humans seem to be closer to their actual lives.

First, what are your sources?
Next, Romulus was a man living during the time of his writings, he dies, rose again and so on. It was all fiction. In fact Mark looks to have used Romulus in part to create his narrative. Mark transfigurated Romulus making Jesus a peaceful savior. There are 20 points of similar plot points between the 2.

It would be very unusual as I see it.

If you disagree, name some other whole cloth fabrications who emerged in pretty much real time.

On the other hand humans who were deified often do appear in or close to their lifetimes.

That isn't true and you have given no sources anyways. Plutarch writes on the popularity of this - euhemerization, the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.
He writes on Isis and Osirus. It was done with many Gods, Romulus, and in one version of Ascension of Isaiah Jesus battles Satan and is resurrected in one of the upper relams.
The cosmology back then was different, they believed there were many levels, each more divine than the last and there was a perfect celestial copy of everything on Earth up in a celestial realm.
Isaiah goes into a trance and is transported through the upper realms. These specific deities always underwent some type of passion and he saw Jesus undergo this with Satan and was resurrected. Jesus later comes down to earth to spread the news.

Such as a brother? Perhaps we could call him James…

We cannot know what Paul means in that passage. In context he does need to distinguish between regular christians who he calls "brothers in the Lord" in other passages. He does not use the Greek word for biological brother. At best we cannot know so this does not count as a historicity clue. There is a much longer and detailed discussion on this topic in journals and books.

"
Whether Paul is actually lying about any of this is not relevant to what Paul wants the Galatians to think and thus what Paul means to say here. And what he means to say is that no one in Judea ever met him. He swears to this most emphatically (Gal. 1.20). He admits there were only two exceptions, Peter and James, and only for a brief time (and that years after he saw the Lord personally). But in saying so, why didn’t Paul just say ‘of them that were apostles before me [1.17] I met none except Peter and James [1.18-19]’? Why does he construct the convoluted sentence ‘I consulted with Peter, but another of the apostles I did not see, except James’? As L. Paul Trudinger puts it, ‘this would certainly be an odd way for Paul to say that he saw only two apostles, Peter and James’.[n. 98] To say that, a far simpler sentence would do. So why the complex sentence instead? Paul could perhaps mean that he consulted with Peter (historeô) but only saw James (eidô)—that is, he didn’t discuss anything with James. But if that were his point, he would make sure to emphasize it, since that would be essential to his argument. Yet he doesn’t. In fact, if he is saying that he saw none of the other apostles, that would entail he was claiming he did not consult with any, either.

So it’s just as likely, if not more so, that Paul means he met only the apostle Peter and only one other Judean Christian, a certain ‘brother James’. By calling him a brother of the Lord instead of an apostle, Paul is thus distinguishing this James from any apostles of the same name—just as we saw he used ‘brothers of the Lord’ to distinguish regular Christians from apostles in 1 Cor. 9.5. Indeed, this would explain his rare use of the complete phrase in only those two places: he otherwise uses the truncated ‘brother’ of his fellow Christians; yet every time he specifically distinguishes apostles from non-apostolic Christians he uses the full title for a member of the Christian congregation, ‘brother of the Lord’. This would be especially necessary to distinguish in such contexts ‘brothers of the apostles’ (which would include kin who were not believers) from ‘brothers of the Lord’, which also explains why he doesn’t truncate the phrase in precisely those two places."