Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[3rdAngel]

Like lo and many another, our hero has no argument unless he makes up something so ridiculous he can savage it with ease.

I did not make anything up. I have only simply quoted you and what your friend said and it seems you do not like it. Look at you, an athiest who cannot prove that there is no God living by faith just as those who believe in God but in the opposite direction. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. If you cannot prove that there is no God I guess you really will want to hope you are right

 

[3rdAngel]

Why? Because no true creo can ever admit to
the least error in anything.

I guess this applys to athiests to

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess this applys to athiests to

See if you can find an atheist making an error and then see how that atheist reacts to your finding. Warning, an inability to follow a discussion on your part does not constitute and error.

 

[3rdAngel]

See if you can find an atheist making an error. Warning, an inability to follow a discussion on your part does not constitute and error.

I believe that if you trying to argue that athiests do not make errors is simply being dishonest or misinformed IMO. I believe all humans make errors to say or believe otherwise is simply being dishonest as no one has the answers to all things in life.

Some errors in regards to athiesm IMO include but are not limited to...

1. Insisting that science has all the answered to everything when science cannot prove that there is no God.
“How did the universe get here?” or “What caused the Big Bang?” What is the origin of life or “Why is there something instead of nothing?” don’t insist that science has the answer. It may not — ever. It is far better to simply say that we don’t know everything, and may in fact never know everything. There will always be some mysteries out there. Just say: “Yeah — it is quite a profound puzzle. No one knows the answer. But just because we don’t know the answers to everything, doesn’t mean we then automatically accept some made-up possibility.”

2. After not being able to prove the non-existence of God, athiests assert without proof there are no valid religions, and proclaiming themselves the smart People (your post above as an example) who have the goal to create a their own religion without God.

3. Error example or dishonest claims stated as fact (not applicable to all athiests only an example of error or dishonesty)
The athiest conspiracy theory documentary Zeitgeist argues that Jesus was just a made-up mix of other ancient gods. For example, it claims that the Egyptian god Horus was born of a virgin, adored by three kings, was baptised at age 30, had 12 disciples, walked on water, was crucified and buried for three days, and was then resurrected. In fact, if you read any of the sources on Horus that aren’t specifically trying to draw parallels to Jesus, you’ll find that nearly all these claims are simply false. So are most of the other claims made in this section of the movie. Still, these claims are repeated widely by many atheists, including Bill Maher in his movie Religulous. Get your facts right people before repeating them.

4. Not being opened and biased to the supernatural without proving that there is no supernatural
There is many things that have been documented in history with many eye witness events from multiple peaple at the same time of the supernatural. For example in the days of JESUS the JEWS for example always asked him for a miricale or sign that he was the chosen Messiah according to their scriptures while supernatural events were happening all around them. JESUS says an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign and no sign shall be given it because even if it was those asking would make up some other excuse not to believe.

to be continued....

 

[3rdAngel]

5. Miscellaneous criticisms of athiest errors (Source; wiki)

The last 50 years has seen an increase in academic philosophical arguments critical of the positions of atheism arguing that they are philosophically unsound.[11] Some of the more common of these arguments are the presumption of atheism,[12] the logical argument from evil,[13] the evidential argument from evil,[14][15][16] the argument from nonbelief[17] and absence of evidence arguments.

Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan[1] and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza[2] have criticised atheism for being an unscientific position. Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century "ecause they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.

Other criticisms focus on perceived effects on morality and social cohesion. The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as weakening "the sacred bonds of society", writing: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". The father of classical liberalism, John Locke, believed that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish philosopher and statesman praised by both his conservative and liberal peers for his "comprehensive intellect", saw religion as the basis of civil society and wrote that "man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long". Pope Pius XI wrote that Communist atheism was aimed at "upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization". In the 1990s, Pope John Paul II criticised a spreading "practical atheism" as clouding the "religious and moral sense of the human heart" and leading to societies which struggle to maintain harmony.

The advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist–Leninist atheism and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against "atheistical fanaticism". The 1937 papal encyclical Divini Redemptoris denounced the atheism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, which was later influential in the establishment of state atheism across Eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mao Zedong's China, Kim's North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Critics of atheism often associate the actions of 20th-century state atheism with broader atheism in their critiques. Various poets, novelists and lay theologians, among them G. K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have also criticized atheism. For example, a quote often attributed to Chesterton holds that "[h]e who does not believe in God will believe in anything". (Source; wiki)

In 1976, atheist philosopher Antony Flew wrote The Presumption of Atheism in which he argued that the question of God's existence should begin by assuming atheism as the default position. According to Flew, the norm for academic philosophy and public dialogue was at that time for atheists and theists to both share their respective "burdens of proof" for their positions.[12][18]

The agnostic Analytic Philosopher Anthony Kenny rejected the presumption of atheism on any definition of atheism arguing that "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism" adding "a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated, ignorance need only be confessed".[30]

University of Notre Dame philosopher Ralph McInerny goes further than Plantinga, arguing that belief in God reasonably follows from our observations of the natural order and the law-like character of natural events. McInerny argues that the extent of this natural order is so pervasive as to be almost innate, providing a prima facie argument against atheism. McInerny's position goes further than Plantinga's, arguing that theism is evidenced and that the burden of proof rests on the atheist, not on the theist.[30][37]

William Lane Craig wrote that if Flew's broader definition of atheism is seen as "merely the absence of belief in God", atheism "ceases to be a view" and "even infants count as atheists". For atheism to be a view, Craig adds: "One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist".[21] Like the agnostic Anthony Kenny, Craig argues that there is no presumption for atheism because it is distinct from agnosticism:

Such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God's existence."[38]

— Excerpt by Definition of Atheism, William Lane Craig, 2007

to be continued...

 

[3rdAngel]

William Lane Craig listed some of the more prominent arguments forwarded by proponents of atheism along with his objections:[39]

"The Hiddenness of God" is the claim that if God existed, God would have prevented the world's unbelief by making his existence starkly apparent. Craig argues that the problem with this argument is that there is no reason to believe that any more evidence than what is already available would increase the number of people believing in God.

"The Incoherence of Theism" is the claim that the notion of God is incoherent. Craig argues that a coherent doctrine of God's attributes can be formulated based on scripture like Medieval theologians had done and "Perfect Being Theology"; and that the argument actually helps in refining the concept of God.

"The Problem of Evil" can be split into two different concerns: the "intellectual" problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of the co-existence of God and evil and the "emotional" problem of evil concerns how to comfort those who are suffering and how to dissolve the emotional dislike people have of a God who would permit such evil. The latter can be dealt with in a diverse manner. Concerning the "intellectual" argument, it is often cast as an incompatibility between statements such as "an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists" and "the quantity and kinds of suffering in the world exist".

Craig argues that no one has shown that both statements are logically incompatible or improbable with respect to each other. Others use another version of the intellectual argument called the "evidential problem of evil" which claims that the apparently unnecessary or "gratuitous" suffering in the world constitutes evidence against God's existence. Craig argues that it is not clear that the suffering that appears to be gratuitous actually is gratuitous for various reasons, one of which is similar to an objection to utilitarian ethical theory, that it is quite simply impossible for us to estimate which action will ultimately lead to the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure in the world.

T.J. Mawson makes a case against atheism by citing some lines of evidence and reasoning such as the high level of fine-tuning whereby the life of morally sentient and significantly free creatures like humans has implications. On the maximal multiverse hypothesis, he argues that in appealing to infinite universes one is in essence explaining too much and that it even opens up the possibility that certain features of the universe still would require explanation beyond the hypothesis itself. He also argues from induction for fine tuning in that if one supposed that infinite universes existed there should be infinite ways in which observations can be wrong on only one way in which observations can be right at any point in time, for instance, that the color of gems stay the same every time we see them. In other words, if infinite universes existed, then there should be infinite changes to our observations of the universe and in essence be unpredictable in infinite ways, yet this is not what occurs.[40]

to be continued...

 

[3rdAngel]

6. Athiesm as faith (Source; wiki)

Another criticism of atheism is that it is a faith in itself as a belief in its own right, with a certainty about the falseness of religious beliefs that is comparable to the certainty about the unknown that is practiced by religions.[62] Activist atheists have been criticized for positions said to be similar to religious dogma. In his essay Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance for the World Union of Deists, Peter Murphy wrote: "The dogmatic atheist like the dogmatic theist is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view".[63] The Times arts and entertainment writer Ian Johns described the 2006 British documentary The Trouble with Atheism as "reiterating the point that the dogmatic intensity of atheists is the secular equivalent of the blinkered zeal of fanatical mullahs and biblical fundamentalists".[64] Though the media often portrays atheists as "angry" and studies show that the general population and "believers" perceive atheists as "angry", Brian Meier et al. found that individual atheists are no more angry than individuals in other populations.[65]

In a study on American secularity, Frank Pasquale notes that some tensions do exist among secular groups where, for instance, atheists are sometimes viewed as "fundamentalists" by secular humanists.[66]

In his book First Principles (1862), the 19th-century English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer wrote that as regards the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism), or creation by an external agency (theism).[67] Spencer argued that it is "impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence" in any of the three hypotheses[68] and concluded that "even positive Atheism comes within the definition" of religion.[69]

In an anthropological study on modernity, Talal Asad quotes an Arab atheist named Adonis who has said: "The sacred for atheism is the human being himself, the human being of reason, and there is nothing greater than this human being. It replaces revelation by reason and God with humanity". To which Asad points out: "But an atheism that deifies Man is, ironically, close to the doctrine of the incarnation".[70]

............

To say that athiests do not make error when they do not know all the answers is simply a falsehood IMO and is simply a faith that cannot be proven.

Your welcome

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that if your trying to argue that athiests do not make errors is simply being dishonest or deluded. Fact is humans make errors to say or believe otherwise is simply being dishonest.

Some errors in regards to athiesm IMO include but are not limited to...

1. Insisting that science has all the answered to everything when science cannot prove that there is no God.
“How did the universe get here?” or “What caused the Big Bang?” What is the origin of life or “Why is there something instead of nothing?” don’t insist that science has the answer. It may not — ever. It is far better to simply say that we don’t know everything, and may in fact never know everything. There will always be some mysteries out there. Just say: “Yeah — it is quite a profound puzzle. No one knows the answer. But just because we don’t know the answers to everything, doesn’t mean we then automatically accept some made-up possibility.”

No one has claimed this. You need to try again. And don't forget, you failed at your "claimed there is no god" falsehood.

2. After not being able to prove the non-existence of God, athiests assert without proof there are no valid religions, and proclaiming themselves the smart People (your post above as an example) who have the goal to create a their own religion without God.

Atheism has no burden of proof. Once again you fail because you won't let yourself understand a concept that is beyond your understanding.

3. Error example or dishonest claims stated as fact (not applicable to all athiests only an example of error or dishonesty)
The athiest conspiracy theory documentary Zeitgeist argues that Jesus was just a made-up mix of other ancient gods. For example, it claims that the Egyptian god Horus was born of a virgin, adored by three kings, was baptised at age 30, had 12 disciples, walked on water, was crucified and buried for three days, and was then resurrected. In fact, if you read any of the sources on Horus that aren’t specifically trying to draw parallels to Jesus, you’ll find that nearly all these claims are simply false. So are most of the other claims made in this section of the movie. Still, these claims are repeated widely by many atheists, including Bill Maher in his movie Religulous. Get your facts right people before repeating them.

There is no overarching atheist authority and I do not know of any that follow "Zeitgeist. Again you have no clue what you are arguing against.

4. Not being opened and biased to the supernatural without proving that there is no supernatural
There is many things that have been documented in history with many eye witness events from multiple peaple at the same time of the supernatural. For example in the days of JESUS the JEWS for example always asked him for a miricale or sign that he was the chosen Messiah according to their scriptures while supernatural events were happening all around them. JESUS says an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign and no sign shall be given it because even if it was those asking would make up some other excuse not to believe.

to be continued....

Again, if you want to claim the supernatural is real the burden of proof is upon you. You would not accept a statement that fairies were real without significant evidence.

And you really do not know what happened in the days of Jesus. The stories about him were written more than a generation after his death. A lot of time for a mythos to develop. All you demonstrated here was your general ignorance and no single error. You made false claims about atheism in general. Now you do not have to believe that atheism is true, but making claims about others that you cannot support and that are demonstrably incorrect is bearing false witness against your neighbor. If you are a Christian you should be aware of a rule against that.[/quote]

 

[Dawnofhope]

You can believe that if you like.....but the Bible is my guide. It’s been around a very long time and the end time prophesies go back to Daniel who lived 500 years before Jesus was born. God does not operate in earth time. He gives plenty of time for warning, but Daniel was told to seal up his book because no one would understand it until “the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)....and here we are.

I don’t believe the Bible is your guide but rather the teachings of your church, a very human and flawed organisation founded by a very human and flawed man, Charles Taze. It is no better than the rest of Christendom you like to condemn.

As highlighted your church has not been the first to believe humanity is at a crossroad with the Coming of another Great Religious Educator, the Return of Christ. Nor is it solely Christians who are expecting the Return of Christ but the Muslims as well with their eschatological narrative preceded by the Qaim, Mahdi or Redeemer of Islam. The Jews expect the Messiah too of course heralded by Elijah. Buddhists and Hindus have similar versions of a Promised One in their sacred writings.

There are of course many key scriptures in both the New Testament and Hebrew Bible, Daniel, the book of Revelation and Christ’s final sermon known as the Olivet discourse to name a few.

So I agree Daniel did seal up the book but it is for the Returned Christ and His Followers to explain it and unravel its mysteries, not for man or any man made organisation like the JWs to vainly imagine they know the meaning while remaining bereft of insight. There will always be those who for varying reasons will be attracted to a narrative that presents the world as being a dark and sinister place with Jesus about to Return in an apocalyptic flash to make it all better. It is human nature to imagine ourselves as chosen or the special ones.

Such is the human condition that its like a cup filled with self and no room for the spirit of God to truly move. In the days when Jesus came many Jews thought they understood their scriptures and completely discounted any possibility Jesus could be their Messiah. The parallel from history is striking as it applies today. So I understand you completely reject the Baha’i Faith because we don’t fit your expectations. All I can add is Daniel 12:4 applies to the JW and despite claims to have unraveled its mystery, its really just false teachings and weeds. Exactly the same ones that resulted in 120 years of the watchtower making false predictions about the future.

 

[3rdAngel]

No one has claimed this. You need to try again. And don't forget, you failed at your "claimed there is no god" falsehood. Atheism has no burden of proof. Once again you fail because you won't let yourself understand a concept that is beyond your understanding.

No need to try again your just simply hand waiving without addressing the content provided. After all you claim you do not believe in God yet you have no proof that God does not exist. This is simply more handwaiving. This is one of the errors and criticisms against athiesm IMO and many other academics as listed in point 5 from around the world that you refuse to address or respond to .

 

[Subduction Zone]

6. Athiesm as faith (Source; wiki)

Another criticism of atheism is that it is a faith in itself as a belief in its own right, with a certainty about the falseness of religious beliefs that is comparable to the certainty about the unknown that is practiced by religions.[62] Activist atheists have been criticized for positions said to be similar to religious dogma. In his essay Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance for the World Union of Deists, Peter Murphy wrote: "The dogmatic atheist like the dogmatic theist is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view".[63] The Times arts and entertainment writer Ian Johns described the 2006 British documentary The Trouble with Atheism as "reiterating the point that the dogmatic intensity of atheists is the secular equivalent of the blinkered zeal of fanatical mullahs and biblical fundamentalists".[64] Though the media often portrays atheists as "angry" and studies show that the general population and "believers" perceive atheists as "angry", Brian Meier et al. found that individual atheists are no more angry than individuals in other populations.[65]

In a study on American secularity, Frank Pasquale notes that some tensions do exist among secular groups where, for instance, atheists are sometimes viewed as "fundamentalists" by secular humanists.[66]

In his book First Principles (1862), the 19th-century English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer wrote that as regards the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism), or creation by an external agency (theism).[67] Spencer argued that it is "impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence" in any of the three hypotheses[68] and concluded that "even positive Atheism comes within the definition" of religion.[69]

In an anthropological study on modernity, Talal Asad quotes an Arab atheist named Adonis who has said: "The sacred for atheism is the human being himself, the human being of reason, and there is nothing greater than this human being. It replaces revelation by reason and God with humanity". To which Asad points out: "But an atheism that deifies Man is, ironically, close to the doctrine of the incarnation".[70]

............

To say that athiests do not make error when they do not know all the answers and cannot prove that there is no God is simply dangerous and self deluded IMO and those who follow it IMO follow a faith that cannot be proven.

Your welcome

When you use a source you should link it. The problem with the article that you plagiarized is that it only is talking about one specific form of atheism. Let's say I thoroughly debunked certain beliefs of the Southern Baptists, just as an example. Does that mean that I debunked all of Christianity? I hope that you said no. And even though this article probably fails in their attack on anti-theism, they have in no way found a valid argument against atheism in general.

And why the article even brought up abiogenesis is beyond me. The fact is that life probably did start on its own. That is not a faith based belief because there is evidence for abiogenesis. There is not enough evidence to raise it to the level of a theory yet.

So far you have failed in an epic manner. Would you care to try again. Here is a helpful hint, it is all but impossible to refute that which you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need to try again your just simply hand waiving without reading what you are quoting from or addressing the content provided. After all you claim you do not believe in God yet you have no proof that God does not exist. This is simply more handwaiving. This is one of the errors and criticisms against athism IMO and many others listed in point 5 .

No, you failed. I explained to you why you failed. You tried to hand wave in some very poor arguments. All it takes is a hand wave to dismiss them.

Try again.

And why are you repeating that old nonsense. Do you have any evidence that fairies do not exist? I would love to see your evidence if you do. By your standards your lack of belief in fairies is irrational.

 

[3rdAngel]

No one has claimed this. You need to try again. And don't forget, you failed at your "claimed there is no god" falsehood.

Nonsense. Athiest generally appeal to science and the theory of evolution to claim that there is no God.

Atheism has no burden of proof. Once again you fail because you won't let yourself understand a concept that is beyond your understanding.

Not at all as point 5 proves and has been stated by many others if you believe in the non existence of God and you have no proof for your belief then you have a burden of proof. This is one of the main criticisms of athieism in the academic world as shown in the article you refuse to address or respond to.

There is no overarching atheist authority and I do not know of any that follow "Zeitgeist. Again you have no clue what you are arguing against.

You not knowing something does not address the post you are responding to and only shows it is you that does not know what you are arguing against. This is shown and demonstrated in your response.

Again, if you want to claim the supernatural is real the burden of proof is upon you. You would not accept a statement that fairies were real without significant evidence.

Nonsense. I never said any such thing. I simply stated that disgarding the possibility of the unexplained is a presumption of bias which was the point being made.

And you really do not know what happened in the days of Jesus. The stories about him were written more than a generation after his death. A lot of time for a mythos to develop. All you demonstrated here was your general ignorance and no single error. You made false claims about atheism in general. Now you do not have to believe that atheism is true, but making claims about others that you cannot support and that are demonstrably incorrect is bearing false witness against your neighbor. If you are a Christian you should be aware of a rule against that.

Nonsense. We have historicity and multiple eye witness accounts as to what happened in the days of JESUS although I agree this is a threat to athiesm that does not believe in God

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. We have historicity and multiple eye witness accounts as to what happened in the days of JESUS although I agree this is a threat to athiesm that does not believe in God

LOL! Where? Seriously you do not even understand your own religion. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus or of what happened to him. Try to find one.

 

[3rdAngel]

No, you failed. I explained to you why you failed. You tried to hand wave in some very poor arguments. All it takes is a hand wave to dismiss them. Try again. And why are you repeating that old nonsense. Do you have any evidence that fairies do not exist? I would love to see your evidence if you do. By your standards your lack of belief in fairies is irrational.

No need to try again. You haven't even finished responding to all the posts sent to you or have you adressed the content. You asked for one example and were provided many. I guess you got caught out by surprise.

 

[3rdAngel]

LOL! Where? Seriously you do not even understand your own religion. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus or of what happened to him. Try to find one.

We have many different eye witness accounts through the biblical records. Some of which are recorded in history. If you believe there are no eye witness accounts than prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need to try again. You haven't even finished responding to all the posts sent to you or have you adressed the content.

Wrong. I finished. There all went bye bye. I am leaving for a few hours so you have some time to think out your next responses. See if you can find some eyewitness accounts of Jesus. See if you can do better than mere hand waving and strawman arguments when you attack atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok if that is true prove it.

No, sorry, you need to support your claim. All I need to do is to point out that no one has posted any eyewitness accounts here. When you try to shift the burden of proof you in effect admit that you are wrong.

 

[3rdAngel]

Wrong. I finished. There all went bye bye. I am leaving for a few hours so you have some time to think out your next responses. See if you can find some eyewitness accounts of Jesus. See if you can do better than mere hand waving and strawman arguments when you attack atheism.

Indeed. Seems you have made a science out of handwaiving in order to avoid discussion

 

[3rdAngel]

No, sorry, you need to support your claim. All I need to do is to point out that no one has posted any eyewitness accounts here. When you try to shift the burden of proof you in effect admit that you are wrong.

We have many different eye witness accounts through the biblical records in regards to JESUS which also bare record to other historical figures around in his lifetime (e.g. Herod, Pontius Pilot, Emperor Tiberius and Jewish historical records outside of the bible and others) some of which are recorded in history and archeological findings.

For example, 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. (Sources here and below are from: History linked)

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.

Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”

Additional Roman texts reference Jesus.

Shortly before Tacitus penned his account of Jesus, Roman governor Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan that early Christians would “sing hymns to Christ as to a god.” Some scholars also believe Roman historian Suetonius references Jesus in noting that Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome who “were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”

.............

(Source below: Wiki)

Historical existence of Jesus

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][24][25] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[26][27] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[28][29]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]

Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[17]

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[18] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah and prophet of social change,[19][20] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it.[18][21][22] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[19][20][23]

There are many other sources not but no need to provide them all. If you would like to read more please see an interesting article from the Biblical Archeology Society here linked for further reading.

................

If there are historical records then there must have been eyewitnesses. The fact that both the biblical records and sources outside of the biblical record testify to this fact is my evidence of eye witness accounts. If you believe there are no eye witness accounts of JESUS and these claims are not verified on the historical and archeological records than prove it. You made the claim now not me. The information provided in this post proves you are in error here.

Your welcome