There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Trailblazer]

From Psalm 37:9-11,29 Jesus taught that humble meek people will inherit the Earth.

Psalm 37
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Jesus did not write the Psalms, but Jesus did say:
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

That is true, the meek shall inherit the earth and the righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever, but what dos that mean?
It means that the people who are living on earth when the New Earth (Kingdom of God) is established on earth and the future generations of people who live on earth will be meek and righteous. They will 'inherit the earth' means they will live on earth.

It does not mean that people who have died will be raised from the dead and live on earth forever.

If Earth is a stepping stone to Heaven then is Heaven a stepping stone for the angels __________ to __________

I do not know what you mean.
Heaven is not a stepping stone for anyone. Earth is the stepping stone for everyone and Heaven is the destination for those who make it to Heaven.

 

[shunyadragon]

Objectively the existence of Jesus Christ of the NT that is problematic as is, by the way, other historical figures like Confucius (Kǒng Fūzǐ,) and Lao Zi in ancient China, There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus as person in history than Kǒng Fūzǐ, or Lao zi, which may have been Created figures by their students to give authority to the compilations attributed to them. In reality the compilations of Kǒng Fūzǐ, are not original writings, but compilations of writings, literature, poetry, history, and traditional beliefs of the Kingdoms of China at the time.

Even though there is no references to Jesus (Joshua or Yeshua) during his life there are references to him in writings after his death. It is not unusual in ancient history not to have records preserved for the lives of historical figures. I believe from later references Jesus was a Jew likely a Rabi living at the time he is described that preach that he was the promised Messiah King of the Jews. He was convicted of rebellion against Rome for claiming to be the King of the Jews. and crucified, which is the penalty for rebellion against Rome.

Like all believed great figures in ancient history his biography was not written by firsthand witnesses and was most likely embellished and expanded to reflect the believers that compiled the gospels we have over more than 50 to 200+ years after the death of Jesus. Paul was likely the first to teach aggressively the Divine Jesus Christ with some of the other apostles? .Evidence indicates that the gospels were likely compiled from an earlier simply gospel called , oral traditions, and sayings attributed to him. The gospels originally did not have authors assigned to them, and some of the letters are of questionable authorship. Though the New Testament is without provenance, not written during his life, and lacking second source documentation it is possible that Jesus Christ claimed to be the promised Messiah, and the words attributed to him are accurate,
,
I recommend 'The Complete Gospels' edited by Robert Miller for all the known writings and gospels written during the first several hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ.

 

[nPeace]

Why the hesitation to answer my question then:

I didn't. Why the famous atheists tactic... Isn't it a bit stale?

Who specifically did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from?

Irrelevant.

It does no good to just refer me to a list of Roman historians from a century before.

Why not?

Can you give specific citations that Tacitus used to claim that Chrestus suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate?

Lol. Tacitus himself. You read it... Or didn't you.

Until then, Tacitus' paragraph on Christians is just 200th-hand hearsay likely gotten from stories he heard Christians repeating in Rome.

Probably? Hmm. Sounds like a man grabbing onto anything he can to prolong his crash.

You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
Actually, he was not the only one you got.

Here's what you decided to do, though.
You decided that a historian of whom it is known 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 suddenly, decided to throw in some fake news. Ha Ha. Why?
Because the atheist cannot accept anything they consider a threat to their worldview, evidence.

Do you realize what you are doing? I'd find it hard to believe, you don't, but if you take this approach, you accept nothing considered histoty, beyond... what year?
Who wrote the Babylonian Chronicles; the Assyrian Chronicles;... Do you dismiss the Roman history taken from sources now lost, or do you dismiss them as fabricated stories - myth.
With that mentality, ten years from now, George Washington never existed, because all we have are the words of people who say he did.

You can't have it both ways.
This is why I asked what history you accept.
However, if you can't answer, I suppose our dialog is finished then.
The OP was thoroughly debunked, anyway.

You throw out this name for example: Marcus Servilius Nonianus and try to imply that he wrote something about Jesus and the Christians that Tacitus used for his own statement in Annals on the Christians.

That's your wrong assumption.
The only thing I was implying, which needs no implication really, is that Tacitus had sources different to what you claimed... and those sources were all first century authors. No mention is made of other source. No need to assume there were. That's conjecture, and similar to a wish..

Do you have a specific quotation from Nonianus that mentions the Christians? Tell us if you do please?

I think your strawman attempts to avoid my questions...
Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.

That's okay though.
If you reject all ancient history on the basis of not being able to find a source of a report, you invalidate your thread.
On that note... Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

 

[joelr]

Don't be silly.

Ancient history is mostly about probabilities, not cast iron facts, so if we took that approach then we would have to reject much of what we know about anything. We don't know for sure that Socrates and Pythagoras existed, but the writings of Plato and Xenophanes are still evidence that they existed.

Simply offering an alternative explanation does not negate evidence, so we don't dismiss Plato's writings simply because he could have made them up.

You missed the point here. It cannot be used as definitive evidence either way. But a good argument can be made that Paul is talking about non-apostolic Christians. Dr Carrier analyzes the Epistles in his book specifically to understand the "brothers" phrase and concludes the simplest hypothesis, with the least ad-hoc assumptions, is that he meant "Christians". Ch 11 The Epistles in OHJ.

We cannot know any mythicist arguments for sure either, so, by your logic, that's not evidence.

That is why Carrier gives the odds at 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.

The problem with mythicists is that they insist you cannot use the same critical historical methodology as you would use with any other historical figure, and what normally counts as evidence is special pleaded away.

Uh huh. Cool. So anyways, the historian, Dr Carrier does critical historical methodology on Jesus, as he does with any other historical figure, and demonstrates that 3 to 1 odds are reasonable based on all available evidence. Dr Lataster agrees in his peer-reviewed book as well.

IF you assume the human Jesus existed and started a small movement that took off after his death, what sources would you actually expect to exist that would meet your criteria for evidence? Creating a closed-system where any evidence that you would expect to exist cannot actually be used is just motivated reasoning.

I don't understand what you mean. All of the evidence available is used? This is strangely common, people arguing against something they didn't actually research?

In normal historiography, multiple, independent, near-contemporary sources that suggest someone existed is considered evidence that someone existed. This is true even if the sources contain clear aspects of myth, or attribute magical characteristics to the person in question.

There is no multiple, independent sources. The Gospels are all re-writes of Mark (Synoptic Problem, Mark Goodacre has done the latest and most detailed study concluding this is the source. The Gospels use Paul to create Earthly stories. The only thing left is historians and they all mention Christians who follow the Gospels. Mark is writing fiction.

Paul is going by visions and sources (Kata), meaning other scriptures. He only knows of a Jesus who is already risen, no ministry, no family, no crucifixion, no Earth stories, the last supper is just Jesus speaking to future Christians, no parables, no sayings, no stories, no life analogies. 20,000 words and never mentions any of the Gospel material?

Ancient biography/narrative history was generally not written as an attempt at objective, modern academic style history and was highly mythologised or contrived for narrative/moral/political/etc. purposes, but we still use it critically. If you want to special plead away this evidence in the case of Jesus that's up to you.

You mean like Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. He wasn't real. Mark also used that as well (Mark transvalued it) as several other works of fiction including the OT, Homer, Josephus..
The Greek school was teaching this fictive biography and the techniques used.
As the Open Mind blog post mentions (based on Carriers' work):
"The Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories."

Once you find all of the source material rewritten for the story there isn't anything left for a real person. There is no special pleading here. What there is is you completely not understanding the vast majority of a position and commenting on that small 2% you found on the internet.

Most historians reject this though, and with good reason.

Actually a historian wrote a book on this, then another.

That is one opinion, many others disagree. Josephus also talks about James, and AFAIK, most Josephus scholars consider that genuine.

Multiple independent sources talking about his brother is good evidence for his existence.

This is the shortest way to catch up.....


"No one can ever cite any expert opinion on whether Josephus mentioned Jesus, if that opinion was published before 2014. Why? Because so much new research has been published on the subject in the last ten years, that opinions published earlier were uninformed (the latest important findings were published in 2013 and 2014, but crucial new results have come out from 2008 on; and one from way back in 1995 that has been ignored until now). Anytime someone cites or quotes someone saying Josephus mentioned Jesus, ask them, “When was that published?” Because if it was published before 2014, it doesn’t count. It’s like that scientist who says no data storage lasts beyond a few centuries. Because he wasn’t up to date on his own literature.
Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D., the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account.

"The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

The "all powerful" church was amazing at preventing factionalism and heresy

In the ancient world, with basic transport and communication technology, it would be very hard to erase things from history even if you had the entire power of the Emperor behind you.

It's more parsimonious to assume it didn't happen than there was a successful conspiracy to hide the fact they had turned the space Jesus into a meat Jesus, which some unknown people for some unknown reason thought would be a great idea..

No, there is a glaring hole of information, no anti Christian views can be found from this period. But they existed. The current canon is a reaction to the original canon, the Marcionite canon, plus the 50% Gnostic sects, it's all blacked out.

Nothing from the first 60 years except what was canonized as the NT.

There should be hundreds of letters by Paul alone. We have 7 and we know there were more. There should be letters from numerous apostles, communications from churches, from every decade beginning with Paul.

No one wrote a doctrinal letter for over 30 years? Then suddenly Clement decided to write one really long one?

No church records, family records, census, tax, births, property, deeds, and many many others, from a family related to the SON OF GOD???????

Church owners would also have kept deeds, contracts, tax papers, everything is gone.

Yet somehow you find the idea that there should be more information must be a conspiracy theory????? WHAT?

The a person easily explained by a human having mythical attributes attached to them in a society known for attaching mythical attributes to humans, who was written about in multiple, independent near-contemporary sources including those noting family and purported human descent and has a backstory that seems to be desperately trying make facts of his life fit a messianic narrative is in fact better explained as being a space Jesus made in an intergalactic jizz factory who, for some reason by some unknown person, was turned into a normal human Jesus who was still a bad fit for a messiah and no one remembered this change happening even though there were countless factions with all sort of heterodox beliefs and lots of anti-Christians seeking to discredit the movement.

Only Mark, that is 100% mythic. The others are re-writes, John is a redaction of Luke. Even then many details are wrong.






Paul says Jesus was "made" not birthed. Same with Adam, he "was made". Born is gennao, Paul uses genomenos.


There is a Jewish legend about demonscollecting semen from sleeping men, including David and used it to beget rival kings.


Yahweh was not talking about a hereditary line, there was no throne, so the prophecy must have been talking about a special son born in the future of Davids seed. But where would the seed come from?


Paul only mentions a metaphorical mother for Jesus Gal 3.29-4.7. and 4.22-5.1

You might find the space Jesus more parsimonious, I find it convoluted.

Yes, the strawman version.

Which of them resemble a normal human with magical bits written about and having a cultic following around the time of their purported lives?

All of them.

It is largely an arbitrary grouping based on subjective preference.

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.

Could just as easily group him with Alexander, Augustus, Pythagoras, etc. as humans with attributes of divinity attached to them.

You could not. None of those had these attributes:

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

And if you were going to attach aspects of divinity to a human, as we know people did, of course it would be likely to have something in common with existing myths.

Mystery religions with dying/rising saviors were a Hellenistic trend. All nations occupied by the Greeks had a similar transformation in their religion as Judaism went through.

It's unsurprising that people writing about a Jewish messiah utilised scripture in constructing his biography, especially as ancient biographies/narrative, in general, were written as explanatory narratives

Except ALL of Mark is a re-telling of Moses, Elija, or some other source.

3-1 based on cherry-picked categories that don't have sufficient data to make a meaningful probabilistic argument. But he's entitled to his opinion.

Right, cherry picked.


myth Inanna to Christ


background knowledge on other religions


on Judaism/Christianity


Epistles


Gospels


Acts


Extrabiblical evidence


political context


philosophical context


elements of Christian origin, development


heroes who never existed


and more



that would be everything

Even before considering other evidence, I give it odds of 90%+ based on his membership in a much larger and far less subjective category: purported real humans written about in multiple near-contemporary sources.

Are you a PhD historian currently applying your degree to a historicity study?
I mean, you still think there are multiple sources?

Paul, Mark

you can get a good understanding of the Synoptic problem from Bible.org using argumemnts from Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction here:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...

bible.org

Again Goodacre has furthered this to even stronger proof it was all sourced from Mark.

The evidence is entirely consistent with a mythologised human, and this remains the most parsimonious understanding.

Can you provide some evidence? So far everything you have mentioned was not what you believed it to be. I can go much deeper on any of these points as well. I just brushed the surface to point out your misconceptions.

As it can't be proved though, you are free to believe whatever you like.

Rather than believe what I like I prefer to follow empirical evidence and experts who specialize in each subject. I have no reason to hand wave PhDs because information on the internet doesn't agree with a superficial and cursory understanding of their work.


I would recommend actually reading Dr Carrier's 700pg monograph on the subject and maybe then acting like an expert, if it's that important. But that's just me, you are free to believe whatever you like.

 

[joelr]

I didn't. Why the famous atheists tactic... Isn't it a bit stale?

Finding what is true without bias has likely gone stale for you because otherwise your beliefs would be challenged. I however, am not bothered by truth and can accept what is likely true.

Lol. Tacitus himself. You read it... Or didn't you.

Tacitus is a historian writing this in 116 AD. It doesn't matter if it's authentic or not. Notice how you harp on the fact that Tacitus is the "greatest historian in Roman history", but somehow forget the most obvious fact.
What is he sourcing?
We don't know. Probably some Gospel. Or from a Christian.

From a modern historian:

"By the time I produced OHJ, I found that 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."

Probably? Hmm. Sounds like a man grabbing onto anything he can to prolong his crash.

Yes, my "crash" into what is actually true.

You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
Actually, he was not the only one you got.

Wow look, again you are forgetting to care who Tacitus was sourcing and sensationalizing everything else. Bells and whistles to distract from an obvious fact. He got this from a Christian who bought into the stories.

Here's what you decided to do, though.
You decided that a historian of whom it is known 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 suddenly, decided to throw in some fake news. Ha Ha. Why?
Because the atheist cannot accept anything they consider a threat to their worldview, evidence.

More nonsense. Since Wiki is so favored there is an actual page on

Tacitus on Jesus​

and it states:
" However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. "

The end.

Do you realize what you are doing? I'd find it hard to believe, you don't, but if you take this approach, you accept nothing considered histoty, beyond... what year?

What you would be doing is accepting reality. Tacitus likely got this information from a Christian who believed a fictional story.

That's your wrong assumption.
The only thing I was implying, which needs no implication really, is that Tacitus had sources different to what you claimed... and those sources were all first century authors. No mention is made of other source. No need to assume there were. That's conjecture, and similar to a wish..


I think your strawman attempts to avoid my questions...
Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.

That's okay though.
If you reject all ancient history on the basis of not being able to find a source of a report, you invalidate your thread.
On that note... Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

Oh so Tacitus is correct and has really accurate sources.
Well,

" and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, "


Then Christianity is a most mischievous superstition, but checked for the moment. Hey guess what, the GREATEST HISTORIAN OF ROME IS SAYING THIS. But you won't agree. Suddenly the greatest looks to have gotten something wrong? But he has accurate sources remember? He knows it's a superstition!!!!


He also mentions OTHER GODS, does that prove them real?

"The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess."




TAcitus also tells of movement of the God Sarapis in Histories 4.83–84. Has Tacitus ALSO CONFIRMED OTHER GODS WERE REAL? Or are you going to cherry pick this and have just the "mystery source" be the source that is actually about a "real deity"? Actually he says it's a superstition so he is the greatest historian. Can't argue.

Bunch of nonsense.


"When they came to Sinope, they delivered the gifts, pleas, and demands of their king to Scydrothemis [the king of Sinope]. He was of two minds. At one moment he feared the deity, at another he was terrified by the threats and opposition of the people; often he was swayed by the gifts and promises of the ambassadors. In the meanwhile, three years passed and Ptolemy did not lessen his zeal or his entreaties: he increased the prominence of the ambassadors, the number of ships, and the weight of gold. Then a menacing vision appeared to Scydrothemis, warning him not to delay the purposes of the god any longer: varied disasters, diseases, and the manifest wrath of the gods tormented him and grew heavier day by day as he was delaying. After a meeting of the people had been called, he explained the orders of the deity, his own and Ptolemy’s visions, and the growing ills. The mob opposed the king, envied Egypt, feared for themselves—and surrounded the temple. Here a still greater tale has been handed down that the god himself boarded the ships drawn up to the shore by his own will: then they were driven miraculously, passing an immense swath of sea to Alexandria by the third day.[4]"

Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, BOOK XV, chapter 44

www.perseus.tufts.edu

Tacitus calls Christianity “the deadly superstition,” one among “the shocking and shameful things” which flow into the city of Rome.


Go ahead, cherry pick. The greatest Roman historian was correct Jesus (Chrestos) was real, then he was wrong about the deadly superstition and wrong about every other God he speaks on. Wow. That is some tapdance of confirmation bias! How does one keep track. Even though his mystery source was impossibly correct he still got the name of JESUS COMPLETELY WRONG??????
Because Joshua, that's tough. It's not because he clearly got it from a source who didn't know what they were talking about, no, it's that he thought Joshua was Chrestos. Cool story bro.

 

[Balthazzar]

So truth matters, but not in " jesus" case?

No percent of falsehood about him makes him
less historical and nore a fantasy?

The name is false. The birth story is false.
Nobody knows where or when the so called
" jesus' died.
The earthquake, zombies and dark sky dont exactly
ring true.
Etc

No sensible person not already inescapably
indoctrialed would believe any of it

As a historical figure, I'll suggest that this much is true, whether his name was Jesus or Emanuel or Soloman, etc. As for the interpretations of the stories and the telling's of about him, I'll suggest that they vary ... obviously. The fantasies typically come via interpretations of the stories told or how they've been told, but as a historical figure, I'll suggest that he was in fact a historical figure. That was the contention in the op ... That Jesus wasn't a historical figure. I disagreed and inquired about Genghis Kahn's relevance as a historical figure. Again, I'll suggest that both are historical figures. I doubt that either could shoot lightning bolts from their arses, but (no pun intended) I'm pretty sure they are both in fact historical figures.

 

[joelr]

That's okay though.
If you reject all ancient history on the basis of not being able to find a source of a report, you invalidate your thread.
On that note... Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

The Bible IS Mesopotamian mythology redone.

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

The Enuma Elish (also known as The Seven Tablets of Creation) is the Babylonian creation myth whose title is derived from the opening lines of the piece,

www.worldhistory.org

Genesis/Enuma Elish
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.





These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[Audie]

As a historical figure, I'll suggest that this much is true, whether his name was Jesus or Emanuel or Soloman, etc. As for the interpretations of the stories and the telling's of about him, I'll suggest that they vary ... obviously. The fantasies typically come via interpretations of the stories told or how they've been told, but as a historical figure, I'll suggest that he was in fact a historical figure. That was the contention in the op ... That Jesus wasn't a historical figure. I disagreed and inquired about Genghis Kahn's relevance as a historical figure. Again, I'll suggest that both are historical figures. I doubt that either could shoot lightning bolts from their arses, but (no pun intended) I'm pretty sure they are both in fact historical figures.

I actually asked what percent of fact, allowing for
that's a hard question.

You know the joke about G Washington' s hatchet?

( the one used to cut down the cherry tree)

"This is his hatchet, but the handle has been replacedccd
three times, and the head twice"

I don't believe any jesus*- story is any more
original than that.

* name replaced once

 

[nPeace]

What is he sourcing?
We don't know. Probably some Gospel. Or from a Christian.

Tacitus was sourcing and sensationalizing everything else. Bells and whistles to distract from an obvious fact. He got this from a Christian who bought into the stories.

Tacitus likely got this information from a Christian who believed a fictional story.

When someone tries really hard to say they know the facts about something they really don't know, we know that person has lost touch with reality. The only reality in their mind, is what they believe.
I rest my case.

 

[Audie]

When someone tries really hard to say they know the facts about something they really don't know, we know that person has lost touch with reality. The only reality in their mind, is what they believe.
I rest my case.

That's a fact!.

But anyway. We hear it all the time from
Christians that they know for a fact that the God
they choose to believe in is real.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hi. I too have done some research on jesus but from the point of view of the Roman occupation. You may find it interesting

My view on Jesus.

I felt similarly. My WIP has variations on the theme.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You missed the point here. It cannot be used as definitive evidence either way. But a good argument can be made that Paul is talking about non-apostolic Christians. Dr Carrier analyzes the Epistles in his book specifically to understand the "brothers" phrase and concludes the simplest hypothesis, with the least ad-hoc assumptions, is that he meant "Christians". Ch 11 The Epistles in OHJ.





That is why Carrier gives the odds at 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.




Uh huh. Cool. So anyways, the historian, Dr Carrier does critical historical methodology on Jesus, as he does with any other historical figure, and demonstrates that 3 to 1 odds are reasonable based on all available evidence. Dr Lataster agrees in his peer-reviewed book as well.



I don't understand what you mean. All of the evidence available is used? This is strangely common, people arguing against something they didn't actually research?


There is no multiple, independent sources. The Gospels are all re-writes of Mark (Synoptic Problem, Mark Goodacre has done the latest and most detailed study concluding this is the source. The Gospels use Paul to create Earthly stories. The only thing left is historians and they all mention Christians who follow the Gospels. Mark is writing fiction.

Paul is going by visions and sources (Kata), meaning other scriptures. He only knows of a Jesus who is already risen, no ministry, no family, no crucifixion, no Earth stories, the last supper is just Jesus speaking to future Christians, no parables, no sayings, no stories, no life analogies. 20,000 words and never mentions any of the Gospel material?




You mean like Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. He wasn't real. Mark also used that as well (Mark transvalued it) as several other works of fiction including the OT, Homer, Josephus..
The Greek school was teaching this fictive biography and the techniques used.
As the Open Mind blog post mentions (based on Carriers' work):
"The Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories."

Once you find all of the source material rewritten for the story there isn't anything left for a real person. There is no special pleading here. What there is is you completely not understanding the vast majority of a position and commenting on that small 2% you found on the internet.





Actually a historian wrote a book on this, then another.

This is the shortest way to catch up.....


"No one can ever cite any expert opinion on whether Josephus mentioned Jesus, if that opinion was published before 2014. Why? Because so much new research has been published on the subject in the last ten years, that opinions published earlier were uninformed (the latest important findings were published in 2013 and 2014, but crucial new results have come out from 2008 on; and one from way back in 1995 that has been ignored until now). Anytime someone cites or quotes someone saying Josephus mentioned Jesus, ask them, “When was that published?” Because if it was published before 2014, it doesn’t count. It’s like that scientist who says no data storage lasts beyond a few centuries. Because he wasn’t up to date on his own literature.
Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D., the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account.

"The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

Excellent, joel.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I didn't. Why the famous atheists tactic... Isn't it a bit stale?


Irrelevant.


Why not?


Lol. Tacitus himself. You read it... Or didn't you.


Probably? Hmm. Sounds like a man grabbing onto anything he can to prolong his crash.

You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
Actually, he was not the only one you got.

Here's what you decided to do, though.
You decided that a historian of whom it is known 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 suddenly, decided to throw in some fake news. Ha Ha. Why?
Because the atheist cannot accept anything they consider a threat to their worldview, evidence.

Do you realize what you are doing? I'd find it hard to believe, you don't, but if you take this approach, you accept nothing considered histoty, beyond... what year?
Who wrote the Babylonian Chronicles; the Assyrian Chronicles;... Do you dismiss the Roman history taken from sources now lost, or do you dismiss them as fabricated stories - myth.
With that mentality, ten years from now, George Washington never existed, because all we have are the words of people who say he did.

You can't have it both ways.
This is why I asked what history you accept.
However, if you can't answer, I suppose our dialog is finished then.
The OP was thoroughly debunked, anyway.


That's your wrong assumption.
The only thing I was implying, which needs no implication really, is that Tacitus had sources different to what you claimed... and those sources were all first century authors. No mention is made of other source. No need to assume there were. That's conjecture, and similar to a wish..


I think your strawman attempts to avoid my questions...
Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.

That's okay though.
If you reject all ancient history on the basis of not being able to find a source of a report, you invalidate your thread.
On that note... Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

If you think Tacitus' lack of sources is irrelevant then that pretty much ends the discussion. It's been fun, Peace.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Christians think they have a direct line with Jesus. I don't think they'll listen to historical evidence from secular sources

Watch the fun when I say that God told me that the Bible is not accurate.

 

[Windwalker]

That doesn't speak to me. Pat Robertson just died, and many who considered him contemptible but haven't thought about him for years (including me ) were jubilant about it. They were not poisoned by any of that. In fact, righteous indignation is salutary.

I would disagree with that. Anytime we celebrate death of others, that feeds negativity in ourselves. It feeds the opposite of compassion. Since you seem to admire the Dali Lama, whom I do as well, can you imagine him going, "Hell yeah, that ******* is dead!!"?

Why not? Because that feeds those negative energies inside of us that gets juice from things like vengeance and violence. The Dalai Lama is all about cultivating compassion in ourselves towards others, and schadenfreude works in the opposite direction of compassion.

But admittedly, I did feel tempted to celebrate his passing, as I recognize the damage he has done to the Christian faith and American culture, then I realized that that is not the right path to take, for the very reasons I stated. It feeds the wrong dog. So instead I simply just acknowledged that he is gone now, and leave it at that.

Enemies are people who want to or who are willing to harm you. Loving them serves no purpose except to make that easier for them.

No. You are confusing loving others, with becoming their doormat. Loving your enemies does not mean you should not protect yourself from them! It doesn't mean be a fool. It does not mean have no boundaries for yourself. That's not love nor how love acts. That's wanting them to like you and not loving yourself. To let others take advantage of you is not loving action to them or to yourself.

This principle of loving your enemies has to do with what you hold and harbor towards others within you own heart. How you hold your feelings towards them. It has to do with cultivating love and compassion in yourself, instead of harboring resentments, desiring retribution upon others, seeking vengeance, hoping for their demise, celebrating their misfortunes, all of which feed negative energies in your own body chemically, and psychologically, and ultimately spiritually, which is that balance of all these systems as a collective whole.

By not feeding that, by letting go of those, through attitudes of forgiveness, and compassion, even towards your worst enemies, you now take away all that power that they had over you by controlling your own emotions and thoughts and energies. You are now free of them, and not given over towards hate, which damages yourself.

So "love your enemy" while clearly counterintuitive, as you have shown that you think it makes no sense, that that means open the door to them, in reality, it is radically sage advice. Because it actually does the opposite of opening the door to them. It closes the door to them! It takes away their power over your own interior landscape, and personality, and spiritual center and ground.

Take what Ghandi said in light of this. "I refuse to let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet". By hating your enemies, you let them into your mind to do their deeds of damage. By letting go of your hatred, by "pray for them instead", by holding attitudes of love instead, you take away all their power over you. By hating them, you give them all your power, and they win.

And. on to top of this, if there is any hope of actual relational peace with your enemies, it is going to come by you not feeding violence in return to violence, which only escalates, and never desecallates. It will come by someone who "turns the other cheek" or does not render and eye for an eye, or a tooth for tooth, which only feeds the cycle of violence.

Getting them out of your life does serve a purpose.

I want to be perfectly clear on this, "getting them out of your life" is not an inappropriate response. You should create boundaries and protect them to preserve your own well being. Absolutely. But hating them, is not doing that. That is in fact letting them inside your head! You're giving them free reign. But by choosing to love them instead of hate them, you in fact are protecting yourself! You are creating your boundaries and saying to them, I am not going to let you rule me and get inside my head and destroy my peace.

Authentic love has to protect itself by establishing boundaries to preserve itself. But hatred is not the path to that. Hatred and retributive thoughts and actions are the opposite of that.

Sorry, but I still consider loving enemies to be terrible advice, and hardly the words of an exemplary person.

And that is exactly the teaching of the Buddha himself, as well as the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus: "If anyone strike you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"​

Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words".​

You see my point here? While you say you admire the Buddha, as do I of course, you think Jesus is wrong when he says the same things. You have to understand from my perspective how this inconsistency appears not based on reason but simply prejudicial attitudes. "Hardly the words of an exemplary person", yet they are also to words of the Buddha.

So "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who despise you, turn the other cheek, give them your cloak also, do not render evil for evil, etc, all of this all the same underlying reason which I outline well above. To do otherwise, feeds the wrong eneries, which feeds the wrong thoughts, which feeds the wrong attitudes, which feeds the wrong actions.

Another quote from Ghandi fits here:

Your beliefs become your thoughts,​

Your thoughts become your words,​

Your words become your actions,​

Your actions become your habits,​

Your habits become your values,​

Your values become your destiny.”​

This is why you should "love your enemies", and forgive those who hate you. If you harbor otherwise, you've written your own destiny, and you chose it for yourself.

What good do you think is accomplished loving enemies?

Peace. Overcoming the cycle of hate within yourself. Cultivating compassion in your life. All of these.

Are you imagining them relenting in the presence of such behavior and now seeing you as no longer an enemy?

No. It has nothing to do with you trying to control their actions.

That' got to be dirt rare and of little value if one has the option of simply removing that person from his life.

Again, yes, love creates boundaries, but it lets go of resentments and hatreds and harboring of ill will towards others. Doing otherwise is you doing that to yourself. End of story.

I wrote, "This is the same. "Jesus's life was extraordinary." "What part?" "All of it, all together." Produce something of substance if you have it, or recognize that you are not going to be believed without it." I still don't see what I asked for. And I never will, because there is nothing exemplary to offer in rebuttal. All we have are things like "Be nice, be pious, love one another, and love your enemies" like just about every other preacher.

I did answer your question quite clearly. How did this not answer you?

"it's sort of common sense to assume that someone that inspired a movement which became so diverse and widespread and evolving as rapidly as it did, was an extraordinary individual. Think of MLK and the civil rights movement, for example."​

​

And by the way, "love your enemies" is not like every other preacher. At the time he said it, it was a radical position that challenged the law of Moses, or the religious norm of the day! "You have heard it said an eye for an eye [quoting Leviticus], BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, turn the other cheek". That's radical for a preacher to challenge scripture that way for that time.

That you hear preachers mouth those words today, is what I said before about it becoming a cliche, that really doesn't have much meaning, just nice sounding platitudes. But do they really understand the radical nature of it? Do they actually practice it? Do they understand the reasons for why to practice it? You didn't seem to understand what it's really about, and I highly doubt they do either.

Yes. I admire the teachings attributed to Buddha, but not those of Jesus. I wrote these words to you a few months ago:

And yet, the teachings parallel each other. It's only 6 minutes, and I'll assume you didn't watch it before when I linked to it. But as you can see, the Buddhists themselves see Jesus's teaching fitting right into Buddha's teachings and how Buddhist can recognize the exact same truths in them with the sermon on the mount (which you reject as a cynical teaching). They clearly don't agree with you on this:

 

[Audie]

I would disagree with that. Anytime we celebrate death of others, that feeds negativity in ourselves. It feeds the opposite of compassion. Since you seem to admire the Dali Lama, whom I do as well, can you imagine him going, "Hell yeah, that ******* is dead!!"?

Why not? Because that feeds those negative energies inside of us that gets juice from things like vengeance and violence. The Dali Lama is all about cultivating compassion in ourselves towards others, and schadenfreude works in the opposite direction of compassion.

But admittedly, I did feel tempted to celebrate his passing, as I recognize the damage he has done to the Christian faith and American culture, then I realized that that is not the right path to take, for the very reasons I stated. It feeds the wrong dog. So instead I simply just acknowledged that he is gone now, and leave it at that.

No. You are confusing loving others, with becoming their doormat. Loving your enemies does not mean you should not protect yourself from them! It doesn't mean be a fool. It does not mean have no boundaries for yourself. That's not love nor how love acts. That's wanting them to like you and not loving yourself. To let others take advantage of you is not loving action to them or to yourself.

This principle of loving your enemies has to do with what you hold and harbor towards others within you own heart. How you hold your feelings towards them. It has to do with instead of harboring resentments, desiring retribution upon others, seeking vengeance, hoping for their demise, celebrating their misfortunes, all of which feed negative energies in your own body chemically, and psychologically, and ultimately spiritually, which is that balance of all these systems as a collective whole.

By not feeding that, by letting go of those, through attitudes of forgiveness, and compassion, even towards your worst enemies, you now take away all that power that they had over you by controlling your own emotions and thoughts and energies. You are now free of them, and not given over towards hate, which damages yourself.

So "love your enemy" while clearly counterintuitive, as you have shown that you think it makes no sense, that that means open the door to them, in reality, it is radically sage advice. Because it actually does the opposite of opening the door to them. It closes the door to them! It takes away their power over your own interior landscape, and personality, and spiritual center and ground.

Take what Ghandi said in light of this. "I refuse to let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet". By hating your enemies, you let them into your mind to do their deeds of damage. By letting go of your hatred, by "pray for them instead", by holding attitudes of love instead, you take away all their power over you. By hating them, you give them all your power, and they win.

And. on to top of this, if there is any hope of actual relational peace with your enemies, it is going to come by you not feeding violence in return to violence, which only escalates, and never desecallates. It will come by someone who "turns the other cheek" or does not render and eye for an eye, or a tooth for tooth, which only feeds the cycle of violence.


I want to be perfectly clear on this, "getting them out of your life" is not an inappropriate response. You should create boundaries and protect them to preserve your own well being. Absolutely. But hating them, is not doing that. That is in fact letting them inside your head! You're giving them free reign. But by choosing to love them instead of hate them, you in fact are protecting yourself! You are creating your boundaries and saying to them, I am not going to let you rule me and get inside my head and destroy my peace.

Authentic love has to protect itself by establishing boundaries to preserve itself. But hatred is not the path to that. Hatred and retributive thoughts and actions are the opposite of that.

And that is exactly the teaching of the Buddha himself, as well as the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus: "If anyone strike you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"​

Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words".​

You see my point here? While you say you admire the Buddha, as do I of course, you think Jesus is wrong when he says the same things. You have to understand from my perspective how this inconsistency appears not based on reason but simply prejudicial attitudes. "Hardly the words of an exemplary person", yet they are also to words of the Buddha.

So "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who despise you, turn the other cheek, give them your cloak also, do not render evil for evil, etc, all of this all the same underlying reason which I outline well above. To do otherwise, feeds the wrong eneries, which feeds the wrong thoughts, which feeds the wrong attitudes, which feeds the wrong actions.

Another quote from Ghandi fits here:

Your beliefs become your thoughts,​

Your thoughts become your words,​

Your words become your actions,​

Your actions become your habits,​

Your habits become your values,​

Your values become your destiny.”​

This is why you should "love your enemies", and forgive those who hate you. If you harbor otherwise, you've written your own destiny, and you chose it for yourself.



Peace. Overcoming the cycle of hate within yourself. Cultivating compassion in your life. All of these.

No. It has nothing to do with you trying to control their actions.

Again, yes, love creates boundaries, but it lets go of resentments and hatreds and harboring of ill will towards others. Doing otherwise is you doing that to yourself. End of story.

I did answer your question quite clearly. How did this not answer you?

"it's sort of common sense to assume that someone that inspired a movement which became so diverse and widespread and evolving as rapidly as it did, was an extraordinary individual. Think of MLK and the civil rights movement, for example."​

​

And by the way, "love your enemies" is not like every other preacher. At the time he said it, it was a radical position that challenged the law of Moses, or the religious norm of the day! "You have heard it said an eye for an eye [quoting Leviticus], BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, turn the other cheek". That's radical for a preacher to challenge scripture that way for that time.

That you hear preachers mouth those words today, is what I said before about it becoming a cliche, that really doesn't have much meaning, just nice sounding platitudes. But do they really understand the radical nature of it? Do they actually practice it? Do they understand the reasons for why to practice it? You didn't seem to understand what it's really about, and I highly doubt they do either.

And yet, the teachings parallel each other. It's only 6 minutes, and I'll assume you didn't watch it before when I linked to it. But as you can see, the Buddhists themselves see Jesus's teaching fitting right into Buddha's teachings and how Buddhist can recognize the exact same truths in them with the sermon on the mount (which you reject as a cynical teaching). They clearly don't agree with you on this:

Such a document dump

 

[Windwalker]

Such a document dump

Speaking of taking a dump.

 

[nPeace]

If you think Tacitus' lack of sources is irrelevant then that pretty much ends the discussion. It's been fun, Peace.

Actually, it should have ended when I said this...
I thought it was a known fact that much of the historical sources, from historians can't be trusted.
I don't know of Christians who depend on outside sources, when the strongest evidence is the internal evidence, which is often found to destroy secular sources.

You know why it didn't end?
Because you imagined you had something, so you made a go at it, by trying a flimsy argument - Of course you don't know any Christians who trust outside sources. That's because the outside sources say Jesus never existed.
Until the truth hit you in the face, stopping you cold in your tracks.

Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.​

Even critics admit that.
They show that they are not biased. You, on the other hand...

Then you started grabbing all all sorts of things, even building strawman, in an attempt to ignore the reality. Lol
Finally, you ran away from the questions, breathing a sigh of relief that you and @joelr don't have to answer why in this case, the majority of scholars don't count... when at all other times, they do.

 

[Audie]

Speaking of taking a dump.

Always someone else else's fault that
you can't condense one paragraph
into less than a dozen.