what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[PoopShoot]

You claim that the ideas must make sense to you.  While your wording implies "that don't make no sense" to be a valid argument, but I assume that what you meant was that you personally had an understanding of the subject at hand.  In this case, you must have a physics degree to understand the big bang, otherwise you are accepting the word of an authority on a subject known to the authority and not yourself.  By your logic, Australia only exists if you've been there, the drawings of some cartographer just won't cut it.

The strawman was that you misrepresented my position.  Of course the authority in question need be able to explain the subject at hand, otherwise he's not saying anything anyway.

[Davin]

You claim that the ideas must make sense to you.  While your wording implies "that don't make no sense" to be a valid argument, but I assume that what you meant was that you personally had an understanding of the subject at hand.  In this case, you must have a physics degree to understand the big bang, otherwise you are accepting the word of an authority on a subject known to the authority and not yourself.  By your logic, Australia only exists if you've been there, the drawings of some cartographer just won't cut it.

How does my wording imply "that don't make no sense" to be a valid argument? Do you know if I accept the Big Bang as true? Do I deny the Big Bang as true? Do I neither accept or deny the Big Bang as true? The point is, I don't see the purpose of accepting something as true if I don't understand it.

This is a straw man: you're telling me what my logic is when I've never said anything similar to this position. Please point to where in my statements that "By your logic, Australia only exists if you've been there, the drawings of some cartographer just won't cut it." Because I don't see how not trusting someone just because they're an authority or only accepting things that I can understand leads to me not accepting that Australia exists because I haven't been there.

The strawman was that you misrepresented my position.  Of course the authority in question need be able to explain the subject at hand, otherwise he's not saying anything anyway.

I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position, I took when you said "Neither. I would accept it because the cardiac surgeon understood the argument and the implications without feeling the need to refute or correct statements made by the engineer." as an answer to my question "Would you accept the engineer's perspective just because an experienced cardiac surgeon agreed with it, or because the experienced cardiac surgeon could explain it?" to mean that you didn't take the position that an authority must be able explain to you a concept before you accept it as true. Because, that was one of the options I provided that you said you did not take.

[i_am_i]

A proper authority would need to be in the context of what is held to by the scholarly peers and experts of today.

Are there scholarly experts on Jesus in the same way that there are scholarly experts on, say, Beethoven?

[PoopShoot]

[How does my wording imply "that don't make no sense" to be a valid argument?

You said "I will only accept that which makes sense", therefore if something doesn't make sense to you, you will reject it.

I don't see the purpose of accepting something as true if I don't understand it.

Do you understand quantum mechanics?  Do you summarily reject the idea?

Please point to where in my statements that "By your logic, Australia only exists if you've been there, the drawings of some cartographer just won't cut it." Because I don't see how not trusting someone just because they're an authority or only accepting things that I can understand leads to me not accepting that Australia exists because I haven't been there.

All the evidence needed to support my previous statement is contained right here in yours.  You reject things that are based "just on authority".  If you haven't been to australia, it's just a picture on a map and what do those stupid cartographers know?

Because, that was one of the options I provided that you said you did not take.

Yes, and it's more than just the ability to explain it.

[pinkocommie]

If this topic is actually important to either of you, why don't you start a new thread?  Cuz at this point, what you're discussing has nothing to do with the historical viability of Jesus or even Jesus in general.

[PoopShoot]

meh.  I'm done anyway.

[freeservant]

I think lundberg500 has a problem in that one can seek out the most negative view one can find and then think it has enough scholarly authority

Freeservant, every bit of what I listed about Tacitus, and the others, is true. I did not make these facts up. I got this information from several sources. The facts remain about this Tacitus comment in the "Annals":

1. Tacitus does not mention Christians or Jesus ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the "Annals" nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage in the "Annals". You can easily read the writings of Tacitus yourself and try to find any place else where he mentions Jesus or Christians. You will find nothing. You have to ask yourself why? This really doesn't make sense to devote one small line about Christians in all the volumes of work credited to Tacitus.

2. The first known copy of the manuscript of the "Annals" dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. The next one was the copy made by a monk around 1038-1055 CE.  Do you not see how there was plenty of opportunity for interpolations by the church? The surviving copies of these Medicean manuscripts are held in the Laurentian Library. Here is a link to a picture where you can see for yourself where the "e" was changed to an "i".The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, showing it to be the original letter.The original word used was "chrestians" not "Christians". I have already gone into detail about how this word was erroneously thought to be about Christians who followed Jesus.

You have still not addressed the issue I presented in the wikipedia link about how the word sounds similar enough as to make this a rather minor issue and not some devastating clue to some broad conspiracy to make up Jesus Christ.  The majority of scholars are against your interpretation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Highlight_of_MII.png

3. Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Just read Tacitus for yourself and you will see.

I think you understand that even the small reference to Christ is a validation of Christ regarding any non-biblical references.

I didn't hunt out the most negative thing I could find and then go with that. I resent that remark by you. I have spent a great deal of time studying these facts.

Let me put it this way.  If I make a series of bald assertions on this form and I don't reference where I got the material from or take umbrage at the inference that I have a theistic bias do you think my protestations would fall on deaf ears?  I also would not submit any content without a website so that any facts I may make claims of do not have a source for further investigation and validation.  Even if this content is not on the web I would have an intellectual burden to show what publications I am referencing.

They are facts. They are true. They make sense.

Provide a bibliography or websites that help to validate your bald assertions.

It's truly amazing to see Christians in complete denial of facts. Anything to save the Jesus that they grew up with and learned in Sunday school and were taught to them by their parents. Christians are just amazing to me. Anytime evidence is presented they have some way of rationalizing it out so that Jesus will still seem as real as ever to them. To anyone who is not a Christian, the facts I and many others have presented like this make perfect sense. They make sense because they are true.

I am not in any denial and can see an almost two thousand Year effort to invalidate an otherwise rid the planet of Christianity.  There is a wealth of evidence and academic acceptance of the Historicity of Jesus Christ.  Most efforts to show Christ never existed fail but there is a simple and minimal standard that you need to establish your case.  That standard is the preponderance of evidence.  If a good case can be made so that it is established by the preponderance of evidence then I should see Christian theological seminary's closing down and a glut of church realestate for sale.

Let me present some information from the foremost authority on the historicity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Question: Is it not true that we don't even know in what century Jesus lived? How come we only have a lot of references in the New Testament and no where else from that general time?

Answer: You will have to work pretty hard to find scholars who argue the thesis that Jesus never lived. Even most "liberals" dismiss these views as baseless. It has been refuted time and time again. Why? Because there are first century references to Jesus, several of which critical scholars date to within months to a couple of years after Jesus' death. I'm speaking here chiefly of the early creeds in the New Testament, like 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. Besides all of the New Testament writings, we have a few extra-biblical writings that date from the mid-first century to about 110 AD. Altogether, there are even about a dozen and a half non-Christian sources that mention Jesus within the first 150 years after his death. For all these sources plus a critique of views like those who question or deny Jesus' historical existence, see my book The Historical Jesus (College Press, 1996).

and...

Question: Why do you suppose Josephus does not discuss Jesus in even more detail? Assuming from his two passages that he was in fact aware of Jesus and the corresponding movement, isn't it a bit odd that he includes no other discussion on Christianity? There is plenty about John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, etc., but very little about Jesus.

Answer: I don't suppose anyone knows exactly why Josephus doesn't say more about Jesus than he does, or why, more generally, any writer doesn't say more about someone, especially in ancient times. One possibility could be that Josephus catered to his Roman patrons, and of course, they crucified Jesus. For instance, neither Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor Pliny the Younger speak well of Christianity. All of them, by the way, along with Josephus, clearly place Jesus in the traditional time slot. But given this general reluctance not to laud Jesus (Pliny states that early Christians sang hymns to Jesus as to a god and even says that he killed Christians who failed to worship the gods), it's not terribly surprising that Josephus doesn't say more.

And here is the link: http://is.gd/fO0gQ

Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

I know that if one has contempt prior to investigation you will not want to seek out the preponderance of evidence for Jesus Christ but I present the pathway to those who seek truth.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You mean like how the majority of physicists once held that light propagated through luminiferous æther?

A proper authority would need to be in the context of what is held to by the scholarly peers and experts of today.  Any effort to conflate some incorrect conclusion held by a majority in the past is a strawman.  

As you know Science is often wrong but self correcting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... 94303.html

Given the position of trust that scientists are placed in it is interesting when the corruption is exposed.

Since you apparently missed the point of my post, I'll make it plain:  even "authorities" can be wrong.  This was no attempt to "conflate" (you'll get points for the odd word-choice) but rather to intimate that we are equally in the dark on the issue of the historicity of Jesus, especially considering the emotional attachments which have likely corrupted the available source material.

[Thumpalumpacus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why does this guy post a link in every comment? Just tell me your argument I don't want to go to another site and read someone elses paper.  

This is actually a good thing; he's making his support available.  You need not read the link, but don't complain that he's putting them there.  They're much preferable to bald assertions.

Note that I'm not arguing that these sources do what he says they do; but even when they don't they give insight into the interlocuter.

[lundberg500]

FreeServant,

You have me convinced that any Christian who goes through the process of creating a username, registering, and joining an atheist forum is contentious by nature and is only seeking out a good argument. Why else would a Christian come here to the "Happy Atheist" forum?

You are losing serious credibility with me with comments like this:

how the word sounds similar enough as to make this a rather minor issue and not some devastating clue to some broad conspiracy to make up Jesus Christ.

This is NOT a "minor issue". You really need to research more on the use of the word "chrestos" and "christos". The word "chrestos" was used long before Christianity and it did NOT apply to Christians. Christian writers saw this word and said "oh, they must have meant Christians like the ones that followed Jesus." This was NOT the case. I don't know how to get you to understand this. You most likely will not be able to understand this because of your one track Jesus is real mentality.

I am not making "bald" assertions. You act like it is just me who has come up with this "conspiracy theory". Do you truly believe that I am the only one who believes that Jesus was not a historical person. Really?

There is a wealth of evidence and academic acceptance of the Historicity of Jesus Christ. Most efforts to show Christ never existed fail

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You lost all credibility with me on this one. I have discussed Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny in my other posts here on this thread. You will never be able to understand anything related to the writings of these men. Christians do not possess the capability to understand.

I know I can never convince you FreeServant. I do not expect someone who believes in holy spirits, gods, devils, angels, heaven, hell, and miracles to be able to use logic and reason. That would be absurd  

[freeservant]

FreeServant,

You have me convinced that any Christian who goes through the process of creating a username, registering, and joining an atheist forum is contentious by nature and is only seeking out a good argument. Why else would a Christian come here to the "Happy Atheist" forum?

The issue is about your sources for your information and the credibility of said sources among the peer group and you still will not produce where you are getting your information from?  Are you really seeking the truth?  I guess asking you to present attestation of your bald assertions is to be answered by the following statement:

Do you truly believe that I am the only one who believes that Jesus was not a historical person. Really?

Really ?  I grant that there is a small minority who do not believe there was ever a Jesus Christ.  This minority is not well regarded if you read the Gary Habermas quotes I posted.

You will have to work pretty hard to find scholars who argue the thesis that Jesus never lived. Even most "liberals" dismiss these views as baseless. It has been refuted time and time again. Why? Because there are first century references to Jesus, several of which critical scholars date to within months to a couple of years after Jesus' death.

You are not alone in your view but you are close to it and would not be found to be credible with the scholars who have proper authority and expertise on the matter.

You are losing serious credibility with me with comments like this:

how the word sounds similar enough as to make this a rather minor issue and not some devastating clue to some broad conspiracy to make up Jesus Christ.

This is NOT a "minor issue". You really need to research more on the use of the word "chrestos" and "christos". The word "chrestos" was used long before Christianity and it did NOT apply to Christians. Christian writers saw this word and said "oh, they must have meant Christians like the ones that followed Jesus." This was NOT the case. I don't know how to get you to understand this. You most likely will not be able to understand this because of your one track Jesus is real mentality.

I do understand the issue as it is mentioned in the Wikipedia article I linked to and quoted the bit that refutes it.  I understand that you subjectively feel I have no credibility, yet for the truth seekers on this forum I have provided sufficient sources so as to explore the evidence.

I am not making "bald" assertions. You act like it is just me who has come up with this "conspiracy theory". Do you truly believe that I am the only one who believes that Jesus was not a historical person. Really?

There is a wealth of evidence and academic acceptance of the Historicity of Jesus Christ. Most efforts to show Christ never existed fail

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You lost all credibility with me on this one. I have discussed Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny in my other posts here on this thread. You will never be able to understand anything related to the writings of these men. Christians do not possess the capability to understand.

sofar you have not made your case with a bibliography of your sources but I have no doubt that your sources are out there trying there best to make Jesus disappear.  You are fighting against the odds and the evidence yet I am sure you will continue in your faith based assertions that if a bibliography was provided I could find what credentials your sources have so as to better understand why you have such strong trust in the inductions you make.

I know I can never convince you FreeServant. I do not expect someone who believes in holy spirits, gods, devils, angels, heaven, hell, and miracles to be able to use logic and reason. That would be absurd  

And I know that I can't convince you as well.  But I can say that if you where actually employing logic and reason then the minimal rational conclusion is that Jesus is proven historically and then you could actually reach a more intellectual tenable ground of just debating the resurrection.

Meanwhile you make bald assertions and methods that could be used to erase many figures from history.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ojfaq.html

look even the internet infidels are trying to be more reasonable in their bias effort to intimate that Jesus may not have existed.  (should you have at least provided this link?)

And let me finish by making the point that if by the third century there needed to be more non-biblical sources for Jesus so as to "keep the myth alive" then why not a mountain of faked documents by Constantine who had a clear agenda.  Why not a smorgasbord of altered documents and telltale insertions so as to make the non-biblical sources a powerful part of the conspiracy to make a myth.  I don't see where logic and reason is on your side be it the Historicity of Christ or proof and evidence that God does not exist.

[DropLogic]

and...

Question: Why do you suppose Josephus does not discuss Jesus in even more detail? Assuming from his two passages that he was in fact aware of Jesus and the corresponding movement, isn't it a bit odd that he includes no other discussion on Christianity? There is plenty about John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, etc., but very little about Jesus.

Answer: I don't suppose anyone knows exactly why Josephus doesn't say more about Jesus than he does, or why, more generally, any writer doesn't say more about someone, especially in ancient times. One possibility could be that Josephus catered to his Roman patrons, and of course, they crucified Jesus. For instance, neither Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor Pliny the Younger speak well of Christianity. All of them, by the way, along with Josephus, clearly place Jesus in the traditional time slot. But given this general reluctance not to laud Jesus (Pliny states that early Christians sang hymns to Jesus as to a god and even says that he killed Christians who failed to worship the gods), it's not terribly surprising that Josephus doesn't say more.

And here is the link: http://is.gd/fO0gQ

Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

I know that if one has contempt prior to investigation you will not want to seek out the preponderance of evidence for Jesus Christ but I present the pathway to those who seek truth.

So if I follow your argument, we should believe that Superman is a real person because the thousands of comic books written about him confirm it?

[freeservant]

You mean like how the majority of physicists once held that light propagated through luminiferous æther?

A proper authority would need to be in the context of what is held to by the scholarly peers and experts of today.  Any effort to conflate some incorrect conclusion held by a majority in the past is a strawman.  

As you know Science is often wrong but self correcting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... 94303.html

Given the position of trust that scientists are placed in it is interesting when the corruption is exposed.

Since you apparently missed the point of my post, I'll make it plain:  even "authorities" can be wrong.  This was no attempt to "conflate" (you'll get points for the odd word-choice) but rather to intimate that we are equally in the dark on the issue of the historicity of Jesus, especially considering the emotional attachments which have likely corrupted the available source material.

And I give example of when scientific authorities go wrong and in this case runs off with 2million as a result of the great trust placed in him.  You also intimate that authorities on the historicity of Christ can't follow the scholarly code of ethics so as to say that no one can be objective and just seek the truth.  Not to mention the peer review process that keeps things like this effort as well as any scientific effort self correcting.

At some point it comes down to a faith in the hearts and minds of those in authority who are giving us an ever better understanding of God's handwork.

[Sophus]

And I give example of when scientific authorities go wrong and in this case runs off with 2million as a result of the great trust placed in him.  You also intimate that authorities on the historicity of Christ can't follow the scholarly code of ethics so as to say that no one can be objective and just seek the truth.  Not to mention the peer review process that keeps things like this effort as well as any scientific effort self correcting.

At some point it comes down to a faith in the hearts and minds of those in authority who are giving us an ever better understanding of God's handwork.

So what you're really trying to say is arguing about this is useless because everyone no matter what their belief has faith and therefore we're all getting into Jesus' heaven.  

No, there's a difference between faith and trust. For the most part, I trust the scientific community to use the scientific method, and to weed out the biased unscholarly people through peer review. That's what it's designed to do. It's a proven process because it produces tangible results. Faith never does. Faith is by definition believing what you have no evidence for.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And I give example of when scientific authorities go wrong and in this case runs off with 2million as a result of the great trust placed in him.  You also intimate that authorities on the historicity of Christ can't follow the scholarly code of ethics so as to say that no one can be objective and just seek the truth.

I certainly said nothing of the ethics of the researchers.  Kindly link to the exact post, or retract.

Not to mention the peer review process that keeps things like this effort as well as any scientific effort self correcting.

Again, I didn't slur anyone.  I merely stated that authorities are often wrong -- even in science.

At some point it comes down to a faith in the hearts and minds of those in authority who are giving us an ever better understanding of God's handwork.

A faith which has been, and may yet be, disappointed on occasion.

Having followed this argument, I see no reason to change my views on the matter.