There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

So how do you observe good and bad using your 5 external senses or a scientific instruments?

I think you are confusing the following. Science is, as a part of how it works, when humans do it as scientists. the fact that we in general have 5 external senses and we thus observe, mainly through seeing. But we can't observe good and bad. What a scientist can observe, is that in a non-scientific way humans feel good and bad.
That is it and how a scientist can't do morality. They can't observe neither good nor bad and thus can't answer what good and bad is. They can't do morality as answering what is good or bad using the scientific method.

 

[joelr]

Paul talks about Jesus having a brother, being a descendent of David etc.

"He meant a regular “Brother of the Lord,” an ordinary non-apostolic Christian. But a Christian all the same—which was important for Paul to mention, since he had to list every Christian he met on that visit, lest he be accused of concealing his contacts with anyone who knew the gospel at that time."
There is a decent amount of peer-reviewed literature on this phrase that agrees.
We cannot know for sure so it isn't evidence.

The Gospels seem to be trying to backfit a narrative onto a human Jesus, which is why it is so convoluted and contradictory and doesn't make for a very good messiah.

I don't know why you say that? Mark is using several sources and prophecies to construct his story, it doesn't seem to be about an actual person?
The contradictions come from other Gospels which used Mark as a source but in re-writing their own version misses many details. The other Gospels were not likely being written to be add-ons but rather were each supposed to be "the Gospel", so contradictions didn't matter in that way.
When Rome put the modern Bible together the most popular 4 churches may have combined the Gospel each was using.

Cults about purely mythical gods tend not to appear in real time, at around the same time as that god lived a normal human life with a few embellishments.

The growth rate of Christianity is the same as Mormonism and the Cargo Cults.

Purely mythical gods tend to clearly be gods, not just humans with a small number of miracles added on.

Jesus was a Hellenistic demigod, son/daughter of a supreme God. Supreme father who impregnates a mortal woman. I don't understand why so many people claim Jesus was so different than Greek demigods when we have writings of Justin Martyr saying he is the same?
Justin is saying the devil made these Greek gods to look like Jesus to fool people into thinking Jesus was just another demigod.
I guess it worked back then. Now apologists just use denial.


Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho,


Chapter 69. The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius

Justin: Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?

Can always say things like "but maybe it's not a real brother" and "in theory there's nothing to stop people making up human type gods in real time" and "maybe he used a cosmic sperm bank", but there are always ways of disputing ancient evidence as it is never definitive.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying when Paul says “Brothers of the Lord,” he never says which kind he means; and had he known that there were two different kinds of such brothers, the cultic and the biological, he would need to clarify which he meant. That he never clarifies which he meant, means he only knew of one kind. And the only kind of such brother we can clearly establish he knew, was the cultic.

Yet despite all of this massive division and inability to agree, some unknown agent for some unknown reason was able to turn a celestial Jesus into a real life one without anyone pushing back on this.

We have evidence of all kinds of factionalism, but not mythicist sects

That period is almost completely blacked out, erased from history once the Church became all powerful. The Dead Sea Scrolls shed a small light on Gnostic sects as well as the letters of Irenaeus.


The celestial version would only be the original sect and possibly Paul. The Gospels would have euhemerized Jesus just as many other originally celestial beings were done to at that time. There were many levels to the celestial realms, Ascension of Isaiah talks about 7 levels, one where the devil lives, one for angels and passions often happen in these realms.

As am I. I just don't find the convoluted narratives necessary to make mythicism probable to be persuasive.

It's not impossible that a compounding series of improbable thing are all true, but for me at least, it's not probable.

What do you find convoluted about Carriers On the Historicity of Jesus or Lataster's follow up? You haven't presented anything that is convoluted?

The vast majority of people who lived an embellished human life and were written about in near contemporary sources actually existed.

100% of all other dying/rising savior demigods added to religions that Hellenistic Greeks invaded did not exist. The Greeks occupied Judea in 167 BC. There was a known Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity is a Hellenistic religion.


whttps://www.worldhistory.org/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/


Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.

The vast majority of leaders of movements that emerged concurrent with their purported lifetimes and were believed to have existed actually existed.

Etc.

Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Adonis, Romulus, Asclepius, Hercules , dying/rising (some saviors) demigods were all fictive.
Those are more comparable to Jesus.
If you read David Litwa's latest book he makes a strong case Jesus is exactly another Greek deity. He isn't a leader of a movement. He's a character used to incorporate Greek theology with Judaism. You need a savior deity to do this.
" The book manages to overcome the scholarly apologetic segregation of early Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ from Greek and Roman dominated Mediterranean culture and to demonstrate the fit of these beliefs in that Hellenistic context. A great deal of writing about the ‘purely Jewish’ Christ crumbles with this book.”

The Gnostic Archive

M. David Litwa, PhD

mdavidlitwa.wordpress.com

Paul knew nothing about his ministry, life, family, birth? Mark is writing fiction and re-working older sources. He rewrites 2 Kings, uses Psalms for the crucifixion...
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives.
He rewrites many Epistles, and much more. There isn't room for a real life persons story.

Like most things in ancient history, we can't ever be 100% confident. A lot of things are possible, folk have to make their own minds up.

Given the evidence is pretty easily explainable around a human preacher of the kind that would be unremarkable, and this matches better with numerous other bits of evidence, that seems far more parsimonious to me.

Well the PhD who looked over ALL of the available evidence gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that suggests a human preacher was the framework the stories were built around.
This is exactly what Carrier is saying, it's based on assumptions that don't hold up.

 

[joelr]

Have you actually read the Gospels?




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.

He isn't. A bunch of fictitious stories are not evidence, just as you pay no mind to the Quran or Hindu scripture and all the miracles given.

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.

HA HA HA! Wow, look who's now using sources? It's ok when you use them but it's an issue when I do. Hmmmm, cherry pick much?

Let's see, your first source is WIKI.Then you lie and say 99% of all credible scholars say something they do not.
Even Wiki tells a different story:

"Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians"

Then they mention Eddy. But guess what, Eddy is NOT A HISTORIAN, HE IS A THEOLOGIAN.

If you go to any historical scholar the passage referring to Christ is suspect, for example:

The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44

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

brill.com

The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44​

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


"
in the end it doesn’t matter whether the passage in Tacitus is authentic or not. It still adds no probability to the historicity of Jesus, as it evinces no awareness of any independent sources. In all probability, in fact, Tacitus would have only gotten his information (directly or indirectly) from Christians, who took it in turn from the Gospels. It therefore only evinces the Gospels were circulating in the early 2nd century, which we already knew. This does nothing to corroborate anything in those Gospels. It doesn’t even support the conclusion that Christians in the 60s A.D. were preaching that version of the creed; as Tacitus does not say he learned that fact from any source of that period, rather than from Christians of this own time. And unknowns, remain unknowns. To argue otherwise is ad ignorantiam.

Because one cannot argue to a probability, from a possibility. That’s a possibiliter fallacy. As here, though it is “possible” Tacitus had other sources or checked them somehow, we have no evidence he did. Nor, honestly, that he even would—the claim was embarrassing enough to someone as unimpressed by Jewish martyrdom theology; Tacitus, yet another notorious recorder of unverified gossip he liked (as even the great Michael Grant would document), hardly needed break a sweat confirming it. So we can’t argue that it’s “probable” he did. The mere possibility is therefore useless."



What a shock, as usual you like to use scholarship but only theologians who agree with your position. Never a historian.

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

Actually people are calling the shots. Religious belief does not matter. Gods are characters in fiction and do as much as any fictional character.

Actually, becase of this attitude.


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.

Great. And here is a paper from an academic press about th emiracles of Hindu Sai Baba, curing blindness, and many other healings. In the 19th century. Witnessed by millions. Yet like Jesus, they are not actually supernatural healings.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43908349

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?


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.

The sources are not historical. They are apologists changing what they want to be true.
Here is a blog post by an actual PhD historian who studies the NT and Jesus history and explains ALL possible mentions by historians of the time and what they were likely talking about.

41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier Blogs

People often ask me about Christian apologist James Bishop’s “41 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Really Existed.” Because it’s the highest number of reasons anyone has attempted to claim (apart from the 10/42 apologetic, which Matthew Ferguson thoroughly annihilated). This piece doesn’t try...

www.richardcarrier.info

Theologians study theology, they are not historians. They get a washed version of history in Divinity school and are bound by oath to never speak about any facts that undermine the religion. If they did they would lose their position.
They are called Doctrinal Statements and you are forced to sign if you want to work as a theologian at any fundamentalist school.

 

[Audie]

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.

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.


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.


Actually, becase of this attitude.


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.


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?


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.

Oddly, all of those scholars believe the
Bible is valid, that " God" is real, Jesus as presented.

Equally strange, all those Islamic scholars think
their Mohammed guy and Koran etc are the real
thing.

It would almost make some people think.

 

[Balthazzar]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

View attachment 77669

Can you elaborate a little? What about Genghis Khan? Is there historical evidence for his existence?

 

[Audie]

Can you elaborate a little? What about Genghis Khan? Is there historical evidence for his existence?

You aspersing my greatity- great granddaddy???

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's even more rude if they don't let you finish the answer.

Do you find yourself being interrupted mid-sentence when posting?

The only reason I answer these questions is for other people reading them.

Me, too. I don't expect to be able to help the people I'm disagreeing with, so I need another reason to do it.

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.

Calling critical thinkers illogical and faith-based isn't a good plan if you can't back it up, and you can't.

For starters, you're presuming that you can identify critical thinking better than those who have learned the principles of critical thought, that you do it better, and that you can serve as a metric for who is being logical and who is only pretending. But isn't it you who is only pretending to be logical right now?

You also don't understand what faith means to the critical thinker if you conflate the justified beliefs of critical thought with the unjustified beliefs of the faithful.

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

It doesn't matter what Jesus is said to have said, nor what he said if anything. What matters is what people teach one another about what he said and meant. Christianity is only loosely based in its Bible, from which a few dozen terms such as "sin" and "love" are borrowed and then redefined at will. The modern Christian gets little of his belief system directly from the book. So when Jones gets his people to drink poison and commit mass suicide, it's because they believe that that's what Jesus wanted to them do.

That's why so many define a Christian by what they see rather than by what the book says they should be like, and why the claim that they aren't "true" Christians if they don't conform to the book is rejected. The book isn't the standard outside of the religion, because unbelievers don't care what the book says if the people aren't living it. The people are the religion, not the book, and they sometimes drink poison and commit suicide for Jesus, or play with poisonous snakes however embarrassing to the believer that that may be.

 

[Thrillobyte]

"Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians"

^^^^^ Hey, nPeace. Did you read this?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Can you elaborate a little? What about Genghis Khan? Is there historical evidence for his existence?

Yes, there's evidence. Too much to cite in fact. You can google "Evidence for Genghis Khan"

 

[Colt]

Do you find yourself being interrupted mid-sentence when posting?

Me, too. I don't expect to be able to help the people I'm disagreeing with, so I need another reason to do it.

Calling critical thinkers illogical and faith-based isn't a good plan if you can't back it up, and you can't.

For starters, you're presuming that you can identify critical thinking better than those who have learned the principles of critical thought, that you do it better, and that you can serve as a metric for who is being logical and who is only pretending. But isn't it you who is only pretending to be logical right now?

You also don't understand what faith means to the critical thinker if you conflate the justified beliefs of critical thought with the unjustified beliefs of the faithful.

It doesn't matter what Jesus is said to have said, nor what he said if anything. What matters is what people teach one another about what he said and meant. Christianity is only loosely based in its Bible, from which a few dozen terms such as "sin" and "love" are borrowed and then redefined at will. The modern Christian gets little of his belief system directly from the book. So when Jones gets his people to drink poison and commit mass suicide, it's because they believe that that's what Jesus wanted to them do.

That's why so many define a Christian by what they see rather than by what the book says they should be like, and why the claim that they aren't "true" Christians if they don't conform to the book is rejected. The book isn't the standard outside of the religion, because unbelievers don't care what the book says if the people aren't living it. The people are the religion, not the book, and they sometimes drink poison and commit suicide for Jesus, or play with poisonous snakes however embarrassing to the believer that that may be.

Atheists are perfectly capable of doing all sorts of dumb stuff as well.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Have you actually read the Gospels?

The gospels are NOT Jesus' words. They are words put into the mouth of Jesus by extremely educated Greek scholars up to 100 years after 30 CE, probably longer because the first copies of the gospels don't start showing up until late 2nd century.

But to answer your question, yes as a Christian for 60 years I know the gospels intimately. Looking through the prism of someone who has seen all the evidence that the divine Jesus never existed I recognize that there are a few good pieces of advice "Love your neighbor and treat him as you would wish to be treated" but most of what Jesus says is garbage from a humanist point of view like "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, then follow me." And "Don't call any man your father." Absolutely disgusting stuff that doesn't make a bit of sense in a modern world.

That does not sound like one who hid his lamp, does it.

Does this sound like someone hiding his lamp?

"However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."

But you're ignoring the whole notion that Jesus could convert the whole world if he really wanted to. The fact he doesn't make any appearances shows that Jesus either doesn't exist or really doesn't give a damn whether people get saved or not.

By the way, you haven't kept you word. Is there something wrong with the sources? What?

I didn't? Did you read my post? Here it is again:

"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?"

And you give several names of Roman scholars (from Britannica admittedly) and all you say is that Tacitus consulted this scholar and that scholar.

Do you know for a fact that the reason he consulted them was because he was looking specifically for information on Jesus and the Christians?

If so, then where in all this Roman volumes of early history did any of the scholars you mention say ANYTHING about Jesus and the Christians? I and others have already drawn to your attention that re the specific passage Tacitus writes about Chrestus Tacitus doesn't give a single citation where he got this info from. But as joelR told you:

"Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians"

And that is exactly what Tacitus is doing from all appearances--echoing what Christians themselves were saying about Chrestus, or Christus if you insist.

There's no evidence Tacitus consulted all those earlier historians specifically about Christians. There is broad evidence he consulted them when writing his 20-some volume history of Rome.

This is the type of chicanery Christians are constantly pulling, and you're not alone in this, nPeace. They constantly try to tie secular matters to divine ones about Jesus when there's absolutely no connection between the two.

Exactly like I said about apologists trying to ride the coattails of historians who say a human named Jesus probably existed. Then Christians seize on that and say, "Aha! You see? All historians admit the divine Jesus really did exist. That proves Jesus is the son of God and our savior."

Deceit--the Christians' middle name.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Adonis, Romulus, Asclepius, Hercules , dying/rising (some saviors) demigods were all fictive.
Those are more comparable to Jesus.
If you read David Litwa's latest book he makes a strong case Jesus is exactly another Greek deity. He isn't a leader of a movement. He's a character used to incorporate Greek theology with Judaism. You need a savior deity to do this.

I want others in here to read this very excellent post from joelr ^^^^^^^^

 

[Audie]

The gospels are NOT Jesus' words. They are words put into the mouth of Jesus by extremely educated Greek scholars up to 100 years after 30 CE, probably longer because the first copies of the gospels don't start showing up until late 2nd century.

But to answer your question, yes as a Christian for 60 years I know the gospels intimately. Looking through the prism of someone who has seen all the evidence that the divine Jesus never existed I recognize that there are a few good pieces of advice "Love your neighbor and treat him as you would wish to be treated" but most of what Jesus says is garbage from a humanist point of view like "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, then follow me." And "Don't call any man your father." Absolutely disgusting stuff that doesn't make a bit of sense in a modern world.

Does this sound like someone hiding his lamp?

"However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."

But you're ignoring the whole notion that Jesus could convert the whole world if he really wanted to. The fact he doesn't make any appearances shows that Jesus either doesn't exist or really doesn't give a damn whether people get saved or not.


I didn't? Did you read my post? Here it is again:

"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?"

And you give several names of Roman scholars (from Britannica admittedly) and all you say is that Tacitus consulted this scholar and that scholar.

Do you know for a fact that the reason he consulted them was because he was looking specifically for information on Jesus and the Christians?

If so, then where in all this Roman volumes of early history did any of the scholars you mention say ANYTHING about Jesus and the Christians? I and others have already drawn to your attention that re the specific passage Tacitus writes about Chrestus Tacitus doesn't give a single citation where he got this info from. But as joelR told you:

"Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians"

And that is exactly what Tacitus is doing from all appearances--echoing what Christians themselves were saying about Chrestus, or Christus if you insist.

There's no evidence Tacitus consulted all those earlier historians specifically about Christians. There is broad evidence he consulted them when writing his 20-some volume history of Rome.

This is the type of chicanery Christians are constantly pulling, and you're not alone in this, nPeace. They constantly try to tie secular matters to divine ones about Jesus when there's absolutely no connection between the two.

Exactly like I said about apologists trying to ride the coattails of historians who say a human named Jesus probably existed. Then Christians seize on that and say, "Aha! You see? All historians admit the divine Jesus really did exist. That proves Jesus is the son of God and our savior."

Deceit--the Christians' middle name.

You know, the good advice or wisdom if
you like, attributed to Jesus came as a
surprise to me when I moved to NYC for
Uni, and found myself as a conversion target
for Christians.

I was surprised, that the same* folk wisdom
we learn as a normal part of growing up
is something supposedly sacred, originally
from "Jesus", and to be taught in church!


* "Jesus- teachings" are kind of sketchy.
So only a partial match.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You know, the good advice or wisdom if
you like, attributed to Jesus came as a
surprise to me when I moved to NYC for
Uni, and found myself as a conversion target
for Christians.

I was surprised, that the same* folk wisdom
we learn as a normal part of growing up
is something supposedly sacred, originally
from "Jesus", and to be taught in church!


* "Jesus- teachings" are kind of sketchy.
So only a partial match.

As a Christian I used to think these blowhards from Campus Crusades were recruiting students because they really believed Jesus was the cat's meow. Now I think it's all, "you people are having too much fun. We want you to be miserable following Jesus like us." Misery does love company.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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!

Not sure how this is supposed to address the point. You just doubled down.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists are perfectly capable of doing all sorts of dumb stuff as well.

Yes, they are. But they seem to do dumb things far less often than believers do. For example most do not make pointless claims. Or at least they do so far less often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a Christian I used to think these blowhards from Campus Crusades were recruiting students because they really believed Jesus was the cat's meow. Now I think it's all, "you people are having too much fun. We want you to be miserable following Jesus like us." Misery does love company.

There is that, but I think that they genuinely believe. I remember Brother Jed and Sister Cindy from when I went to college a million years ago (or at least it seems that way lately). They were a fun break on warm spring days. Brother Jed was a young handsome fire and brimstone pastor and Sister Cindy was his quiet aid that was as close to eye candy as Christians could tolerate. The last I heard they were still preaching the word, though Jed is getting awfully old and Cindy has been his wife for quite some time.

EDIT: Brother Jed is with us no more. He died almost a year ago:

Brother Jed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Audie]

As a Christian I used to think these blowhards from Campus Crusades were recruiting students because they really believed Jesus was the cat's meow. Now I think it's all, "you people are having too much fun. We want you to be miserable following Jesus like us." Misery does love company.

Whatever the motive.

For a time I thought the philosophy students were the most tiresome people on campus.
Far from true, though.
Prize goes to CC.

 

[Thrillobyte]

There is that, but I think that they genuinely believe. I remember Brother Jed and Sister Cindy from when I went to college a million years ago (or at least it seems that way lately). They were a fun break on warm spring days. Brother Jed was a young handsome fire and brimstone pastor and Sister Cindy was his quiet aid that was as close to eye candy as Christians could tolerate. The last I heard they were still preaching the word, though Jed is getting awfully old and Cindy has been his wife for quite some time.

EDIT: Brother Jed is with us no more. He died almost a year ago:

Brother Jed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sad news. Good ol' Brother Jed--still with us in memory if not in body.

 

[Thrillobyte]

The man had to marvel. Amazing.

What's your opinion on what Justin Martyr, your own Christian church father (100-165 CE) had to say about Jesus:

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."​

A quote from The First Apology of Justin Martyr, Addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius; Prefaced by Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucifi...

www.goodreads.com

Translated: "Jesus is no different from what you believe about the sons of Jupiter. You believe Jesus is the first-born of your god without sexual union and was crucified, died, rose and ascended. Well, we believe exactly the same things about our gods."

So, according to Justin Martyr, Jesus is no different from Mercury, Bacchus, Perseus and Hercules.

What's your opinion of that?