What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?

[joelr]

Why not use your own findings from the bible instead of appeals to ( wacky ) authority?

Well every time I read the Bible it sounds like ancient mythology. It sounds exactly as made up as Greek myths or any of the hundreds of myths I read in Joseph Campbells works.
So I turn to people who spend their lives studying the original sources and have informed, educated opinions. And guess what, turns out the myths are not even original. How would reading the Bible tell me all of the stories are taken from older sources I never read? Or that the literary content is written exactly like fiction of the time? Or that 98% of Matthew is copied verbatim from Mark? Or that dying/rising savior demigods were popular in the Mediterranean? Or that Acts is a fictional travel narrative that copies earlier literature to a ridiculous amount? Or Mark actually takes Paul and crafts earthly narratives about Jesus?

None of that is obvious from just reading scripture. Your call for ignorance is embarrassing. Even worse you have no rebuttal on Carrier's work so you clearly just call him "wacky" as if that doesn't speak to your lack of knowledge?

I also find the Bible allows for slavery instead of banning it. It tells Israelites to kill every living thing in 6 cities. In all the rest you make an offer of forced labor and if refused you kill everyone and take women and children as "plunder".
Archeology has already demonstrated that the Canaanites were NOT evil as portrayed in scripture so please spare me those apologetics.
It also requires blood sacrifice to get anything done and ends with a supreme magic blood sacrifice and threats of hell for non-believers. The good stuff was stolen from Rabbi Hillel who lived before Jesus. The first 3 commandments are about how freedom of religion is evil? My findings are it's mostly bad fiction with some good wisdom. Most of the good has to be taken as metaphor or a parable as literal readings leave people with ridiculous beliefs about worshiping and threats of being banned from an afterlife.
Also "sin" sounds like a con. Everyone is a sinner so you cannot get into the afterlife, but we have the fix? Also revelations? Do you believe the angel Moroni spoke to J Smith? Or the angel Gabrielle spoke to Mohammad? Did Krishna really speak to Prince Arjuna? Or the thousands of people who claim to speak to a deity every year? No. No chance.
Well Paul also sounds like he's pushing fiction and decided to rev it up a bit with a "vision".

Then there is Book of Revelations. This is Lord of the Rings level fiction. Speaking of "wacky"?

Plato's Republic is actually an argument that societies have to create myths and convince people they are real and kill heretics and these "Gaurdians" know the truth but make sure people don't know.
Then a few hundred years later..The Vatican.

Again, everything Carrier is saying is consensus (almost everything). Since Thomas Thompsons work in the 70's Moses has been considered a myth and so on. Archeology backs that up as well.

 

[joelr]

Whenever I go to a page with a title like that, I instantly close it, as it clearly broadcasts its inability to present facts.

Which clearly broadcasts your inability to learn new facts.
It doesn't matter how facts are presented, it matters if they are true.

But luckily I can present facts so here you go....

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Wiki. The quote is not sourcing historians and not current scholarship. Wiki is hit or miss. This would be a miss.

Craig Alan Evans is an evangelical New Testament scholar and author - Evangelical, really?
Helen Katharine Bond is a British Professor of Christian Origins

It's been made clear by several biblical historians that the Tacitus passage isn't likely authentic however it does not matter. Even if it is he is merely sourcing Christians who were sourcing the gospels.
A current historian who studies Tacitus and Suetonius:


"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."
Dr Carrier

 

[John1.12]

Wow, what a rebuttal. Call the scholar wacky? Most of his information there is just consensus in the historicity field.

You know he's wacky because they told you in church? Or is that a revelation? Do revelations include sources?

I've watched all his debates .

 

[John1.12]

Well every time I read the Bible it sounds like ancient mythology. It sounds exactly as made up as Greek myths or any of the hundreds of myths I read in Joseph Campbells works.
So I turn to people who spend their lives studying the original sources and have informed, educated opinions. And guess what, turns out the myths are not even original. How would reading the Bible tell me all of the stories are taken from older sources I never read? Or that the literary content is written exactly like fiction of the time? Or that 98% of Matthew is copied verbatim from Mark? Or that dying/rising savior demigods were popular in the Mediterranean? Or that Acts is a fictional travel narrative that copies earlier literature to a ridiculous amount? Or Mark actually takes Paul and crafts earthly narratives about Jesus?

None of that is obvious from just reading scripture. Your call for ignorance is embarrassing. Even worse you have no rebuttal on Carrier's work so you clearly just call him "wacky" as if that doesn't speak to your lack of knowledge?

I also find the Bible allows for slavery instead of banning it. It tells Israelites to kill every living thing in 6 cities. In all the rest you make an offer of forced labor and if refused you kill everyone and take women and children as "plunder".
Archeology has already demonstrated that the Canaanites were NOT evil as portrayed in scripture so please spare me those apologetics.
It also requires blood sacrifice to get anything done and ends with a supreme magic blood sacrifice and threats of hell for non-believers. The good stuff was stolen from Rabbi Hillel who lived before Jesus. The first 3 commandments are about how freedom of religion is evil? My findings are it's mostly bad fiction with some good wisdom. Most of the good has to be taken as metaphor or a parable as literal readings leave people with ridiculous beliefs about worshiping and threats of being banned from an afterlife.
Also "sin" sounds like a con. Everyone is a sinner so you cannot get into the afterlife, but we have the fix? Also revelations? Do you believe the angel Moroni spoke to J Smith? Or the angel Gabrielle spoke to Mohammad? Did Krishna really speak to Prince Arjuna? Or the thousands of people who claim to speak to a deity every year? No. No chance.
Well Paul also sounds like he's pushing fiction and decided to rev it up a bit with a "vision".

Then there is Book of Revelations. This is Lord of the Rings level fiction. Speaking of "wacky"?

Plato's Republic is actually an argument that societies have to create myths and convince people they are real and kill heretics and these "Gaurdians" know the truth but make sure people don't know.
Then a few hundred years later..The Vatican.

Again, everything Carrier is saying is consensus (almost everything). Since Thomas Thompsons work in the 70's Moses has been considered a myth and so on. Archeology backs that up as well.

Have you ever thought about not approaching the bible as if it is 'myths ' ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've watched all his debates .

An inability to understand does not make your opponent "wacky".

 

[John1.12]

An inability to understand does not make your opponent "wacky".

I understood what he was saying in the debates .

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why would I be offended? I've broken many of Jehovah's rules and laws with no remorse, guilt, or shame. I am an anti-Christ. I am a Satanist. There's no possible way I can take offense over this. I'm not Christian anymore, so such a statement can no longer sting.

Well, good. That wasn’t my intent.
I only wanted to present your current lifestyle as being opposite what God’s standards are (hence you have free will), and then reason that God isn’t using you as an employee, so why claim God is using Satan as one, with the purpose to oppose Him?

Again I ask, “Who does that?” Such a claim — using someone specifically to oppose you — should immediately raise one’s skepticism about that belief.

I don't accept the OT either.
But, ultimately, this devil in the Gospels is absent from Judaism. You can go ask them.

I have. I’ve spoken w/ individuals representing several branches of Judaism, each with their own belief set. Including Jews accepting Kabbalistic texts, to varying degrees. Some support Maimonides’ POV, still others echo the writings of Hasidism’s founder, Israel ben Eliezer, & his disciples.
There’s clearly no solid consensus.

Where does all this confusion among mankind (so evident on this forum), come from?


“Sovereignty can eat my shorts”. Lol!

You are a feisty one!

I wish you the best, my cousin.

 

[joelr]

I've watched all his debates .

I find that unlikely. You would know that it hasn't been "debunked" a long time ago. It isn't "wacky" and most of the information isn't Carriers. For you to hand wave off basic historical facts and consensus shows you are not the least interested in listening to scholars explain why your beliefs may be placed in something that is not true.

 

[joelr]

Have you ever thought about not approaching the bible as if it is 'myths ' ?

I just gave some thoughts in the last post about reading scripture as if it isn't myths? There are many other things I found immoral and horrible, those were just a few from memory.
Re-read my post, these are findings from reading scripture as if it's historical. The OT is a nightmare, plagues on entire cities and other things mentioned and the NT is over the top worship of a demigod or you cannot be allowed into the afterlife.
Break away from your family if they are non-believers, eternal flame for non-belief and a Lord of the Rings world ending.

I can read the Bhagavad Gita as if it's not myth as well. I still don't believe Krishna actually is real and was on Earth?
Here at least there are some good messages without the bad mixed in and it's a metaphorical story about love, 2 thousand years before Christianity.

"Whether we consider Krishna a character in a story, a god of Hindu mythology, or an actual historical figure, the message that comes through the body known as Krishna is the same, for it is the expression of Love, which comes from the one source, which is God."
Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita | Unimed Living

I could ask you to read Islamic updates or Mormonism updates to Christianity as if they were not myths. Or Hinduism? What is the point of that?

 

[nPeace]

Which clearly broadcasts your inability to learn new facts.
It doesn't matter how facts are presented, it matters if they are true.

But luckily I can present facts so here you go....


Wiki. The quote is not sourcing historians and not current scholarship. Wiki is hit or miss. This would be a miss.

Craig Alan Evans is an evangelical New Testament scholar and author - Evangelical, really?
Helen Katharine Bond is a British Professor of Christian Origins

It's been made clear by several biblical historians that the Tacitus passage isn't likely authentic however it does not matter. Even if it is he is merely sourcing Christians who were sourcing the gospels.
A current historian who studies Tacitus and Suetonius:


"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."
Dr Carrier

It doesn't matter to you? Of course it doesn't.
I don't think it is possible to satisfy objector to anything they are opposed to, and will deny to the very end, regardless of what facts are given them.

Here is why it does matter to one who is reasonable, and not biased to their own opinion, and worldview.

There were a number of Roman historians, all referring to the same event.
Suetonius is one of three key Roman authors who may refer to early Christians, the other two being Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. These authors refer to events which take place during the reign of various Roman emperors, Suetonius writing about the Claudius expulsion and Nero's persecutions, Tacitus referring to Nero's actions around the time of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while Pliny's letters are to Trajan about the trials he was holding for Christians around 111 AD. But the temporal order for the documents begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius around 122 AD.

These all lived between about 55 - 123 CE.
On Nero, Tacitus drew from Marcus Cluvius Rufus (was a Roman consul, senator, governor, and historian who was mentioned on several occasions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Josephus and Plutarch.), and Fabius Rusticus.

This is not to say that Tacitus got any information about from these sources, about Christians, since he was in his early teens, around the time of the Fire in Rome, and he was probably very interested in Roman politics.
As a growing teen, he would have questioned his parents, and personally known of the persecution meted out at the hands of Nero.
However, he had a good source of information.
Cluvius Rufus was an important historian whose writing and testimony, though now lost, certainly shaped modern understanding of first century Rome. He was a contemporary of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, but little is known of the extent of his work except that it related to events during the reign of these emperors. Cluvius was one of the primary sources for Tacitus' Annals and Histories, Suetonius' The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Plutarch's Parallel Lives and probably for later historians.

There is no reliable source that demonstrates Tacitus sourced Christians, from information on Christians.

There were Romans who were enemies of Christianity, and they did not deny Christianity nor did they deny what was said about Jesus Christ.
One such person was Porphyry.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122) mentions early Christians...

Christians are explicitly mentioned in Suetonius' biography of the Emperor Nero (Nero 16) as among those punished during Nero's reign. These punishments are generally dated to around AD 64, the year of the Great Fire of Rome. In this passage Suetonius describes Christianity as excessive religiosity (superstitio) as do his contemporaries, Tacitus and Pliny.

So we have non-Christian references stating the facts that 1) Christianity originated, and was known early in first century Rome. 2) Christians were persecuted. 3) Their leader the Christ, was executed.
Just as we read in the Bible. Actually, exactly as we read in the Bible. There is no reason, for reasonably dismissing the evidence for Jesus the Christ.
The only reason, which is not reasonable, nor rational, is opinionated bias against the Gospels.

We have solid evidence Jesus was a real historical person; he was executed, and he was resurrected.
This evidence matters to Christian. They may not matter to unbelievers, or so they imagine, but it does matter, as most, I believe, will find out soon.

 

[Muffled]

I believe for me I already believed in reincarnation because of the book "The Search for Bridey Murphy." THe I read the account in John three about how to tell if there were such a thing as a Spirit. Knowing that two sources said there was a spirit that could re-enter a body did it for me.

 

[Muffled]

As I was born into it, there was no critical information as to believing it. I just did.
And then not believing it, it wasn't one bit of information, but rather a bombardment of information from the world outside the church-cult that made leaving possible.. This included everything from the lack of opposition towards Christians and the general social approval and support towards them, learning many stories of the OT aren't original, and a critical reading of the Bible. I began to realize that as violent and barbaric as the OT is and with so many of the stories coming form those such as the Babylonians it became harder to defend and hold onto and rationalize and justify. And with OT in question, the entire point of a Messiah and even Jesus eventually came into question. Add some prophecies learned of he just didn't even remotely fail, and I came to reject the entirety of Christianity and all Abrahamic religions.

I believe that means you started from a position of irrationality so it was not a stretch to continue seeing things that way.

 

[Muffled]

Your points are all good but this is the best of all your points.

To this I say that God does not want is to believe that Jesus rose, because Jesus did not rise, and that is why there is no 'real evidence' that Jesus rose, only stories written by men. Anyone can write a story and make it sound real, that's what storytelling is all about.

I believe that point is illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that point is illogical.

Why?

 

[John1.12]

I just gave some thoughts in the last post about reading scripture as if it isn't myths? There are many other things I found immoral and horrible, those were just a few from memory.
Re-read my post, these are findings from reading scripture as if it's historical. The OT is a nightmare, plagues on entire cities and other things mentioned and the NT is over the top worship of a demigod or you cannot be allowed into the afterlife.
Break away from your family if they are non-believers, eternal flame for non-belief and a Lord of the Rings world ending.

I can read the Bhagavad Gita as if it's not myth as well. I still don't believe Krishna actually is real and was on Earth?
Here at least there are some good messages without the bad mixed in and it's a metaphorical story about love, 2 thousand years before Christianity.

"Whether we consider Krishna a character in a story, a god of Hindu mythology, or an actual historical figure, the message that comes through the body known as Krishna is the same, for it is the expression of Love, which comes from the one source, which is God."
Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita | Unimed Living

I could ask you to read Islamic updates or Mormonism updates to Christianity as if they were not myths. Or Hinduism? What is the point of that?

No one gets angry and upset at myths the way they do the bible.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

No one gets angry and upset at myths the way they do the bible.

That's because no other holy book is saturated with blood and mass genocides like the Old Testament. You should be calling it an "unholy" book. An alternative "Inerrant Word of a Mass-Killer God" is also not too bad.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe that means you started from a position of irrationality so it was not a stretch to continue seeing things that way.

Yup. Continue the Christian tradition of saying "its you, entirely you" to people who leave rather than consider its the religion itself.

 

[joelr]

It doesn't matter to you? Of course it doesn't.
I don't think it is possible to satisfy objector to anything they are opposed to, and will deny to the very end, regardless of what facts are given them.

Exactly true for religious people. My only interest in what is true.

Here is why it does matter to one who is reasonable, and not biased to their own opinion, and worldview.

There were a number of Roman historians, all referring to the same event.
Suetonius is one of three key Roman authors who may refer to early Christians, the other two being Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. These authors refer to events which take place during the reign of various Roman emperors, Suetonius writing about the Claudius expulsion and Nero's persecutions, Tacitus referring to Nero's actions around the time of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, while Pliny's letters are to Trajan about the trials he was holding for Christians around 111 AD. But the temporal order for the documents begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius around 122 AD.

These all lived between about 55 - 123 CE.
On Nero, Tacitus drew from Marcus Cluvius Rufus (was a Roman consul, senator, governor, and historian who was mentioned on several occasions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Josephus and Plutarch.), and Fabius Rusticus.

This is not to say that Tacitus got any information about from these sources, about Christians, since he was in his early teens, around the time of the Fire in Rome, and he was probably very interested in Roman politics.
As a growing teen, he would have questioned his parents, and personally known of the persecution meted out at the hands of Nero.
However, he had a good source of information.
Cluvius Rufus was an important historian whose writing and testimony, though now lost, certainly shaped modern understanding of first century Rome. He was a contemporary of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, but little is known of the extent of his work except that it related to events during the reign of these emperors. Cluvius was one of the primary sources for Tacitus' Annals and Histories, Suetonius' The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Plutarch's Parallel Lives and probably for later historians.

There is no reliable source that demonstrates Tacitus sourced Christians, from information on Christians.

There were Romans who were enemies of Christianity, and they did not deny Christianity nor did they deny what was said about Jesus Christ.
One such person was Porphyry.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122) mentions early Christians...

Christians are explicitly mentioned in Suetonius' biography of the Emperor Nero (Nero 16) as among those punished during Nero's reign. These punishments are generally dated to around AD 64, the year of the Great Fire of Rome. In this passage Suetonius describes Christianity as excessive religiosity (superstitio) as do his contemporaries, Tacitus and Pliny.

So we have non-Christian references stating the facts that 1) Christianity originated, and was known early in first century Rome. 2) Christians were persecuted. 3) Their leader the Christ, was executed.
Just as we read in the Bible. Actually, exactly as we read in the Bible. There is no reason, for reasonably dismissing the evidence for Jesus the Christ.
The only reason, which is not reasonable, nor rational, is opinionated bias against the Gospels.

We have solid evidence Jesus was a real historical person; he was executed, and he was resurrected.
This evidence matters to Christian. They may not matter to unbelievers, or so they imagine, but it does matter, as most, I believe, will find out soon.

First of all here is an excellent example of you ignoring facts and bending them to your beliefs.
Demonstrating the possible historicity of Jesus means there was a man who was a Rabbi and later mythicized as a dying/rising demigod. Even if Jesus were a person none of this gives any proof to the idea that this one religion was true while all the other stories of resurrecting Gods were false.
The only historian that you mention is speaking of the execution in Tacitus. Historian Richard Carrier wrote a paper published in Vigiliae Christianae demonstrating that it's likely the single line about "Christ" was added in the 4th century.
Willem J. C. Blom then wrote a response titled “Why the Testimonium Taciteum Is Authentic: A Response to Carrier”
and Carrier answered all his criticisms here:

Blom on the Testimonium Taciteum • Richard Carrier
He covers Suetonius and Tacitus.

This compiled evidence raises serious doubts that the Tacitus passage is authentic.

We already know Christianity originates and members were persecuted. As to this specific persecution there is doubt.
Your ridiculous leap of logic that this means all the supernatural stories are true shows the only person bias towards their own beliefs here is you. You are skimming over articles and assuming the information is true.

Blom did not address Carriers' main points which still stand:

"
I make four main arguments for my conclusion: (A) no Christian accounts of the Neronian persecution mention “a large multitude” being killed, or any proximity to the fire of Rome, or being blamed for it, yet Christians should know their own history better than Tacitus would (in other words, it’s not in any of the Neronian martyrdom texts we have); (B) there is in fact a complete absence of any martyrdom tradition resulting from that event for almost three hundred years, when it appears obliquely in the fourth century in the forged correspondence between Seneca and Paul, which actually says Jews and Christians were persecuted for the fire (evincing knowledge of Tacitus mentioning Jews, and then forging a new addition of Christians being swept up with them); (C) before that forgery, even Christian authors who read and used Tacitus (from Tertullian to Lactantius) had never heard of anything Tacitus relates in this passage, and never mention it, in fact so far as we can tell no Christian or non-Christian author had ever heard of it until that forged fourth century correspondence invented it; and, finally, (D) Tacitus’s account makes more sense as a persecution of Chrestians than of Christians (which I already touched on above).

Three of these are arguments from silence: Christian accounts we have don’t mention it; we have no Christian accounts that mention it until the forgery of a “Jews and Christians” story in the fourth century; and even Christian apologists who had read and employed Tacitus and wrote about the Neronian persecution don’t mention it (likewise any other author, Christian or otherwise). Together that’s a pretty devastating argument against any mention of Christians, rather than simply Jews (the Chrestian agitators), having been in Tacitus, until that starts to appear in the late fourth century, after the notion was invented in a Christian-forged letter from Seneca that appears to have been inspired by the original account in Tacitus that blamed Jews."

 

[joelr]

No one gets angry and upset at myths the way they do the bible.

Wrong. The Quran is more upsetting. In both cases it's not the myths but because people still sometimes don't realize they are myths.

 

[John1.12]

That's because no other holy book is saturated with blood and mass genocides like the Old Testament. You should be calling it an "unholy" book. An alternative "Inerrant Word of a Mass-Killer God" is also not too bad.

But if its all myths ,who cares right ?