Happy Atheist Forum

Hey,

Just wondering what people here generally believe about Jesus.

Did he exist, was he a real man, if so who was he? Did he perform miracles or was he just a clever magician... was the story of his life just Chinese whispers...  :pop:

What would Jesus do?
He’d give drunken men more wine. (John Chapter 2)
He’d spit on a blind guy. (John 9:6)
He’d get intimate with a hooker. (Luke chapter 7)
He’d ask to be alone with children. (Mark 10:14)
He’d beat up people for having a church fundraiser. (Matt chapter 21)
He’d steal a little boy’s lunch and give it to strangers. (John Chapter 6)

What a guy, Jesus.

But seriously.

Quote from: "chrome"Did he exist, was he a real man, if so who was he? Did he perform miracles or was he just a clever magician... was the story of his life just Chinese whispers...

I doubt he existed and more likely was a figure made up decades after his supposed death in order to give credence to a fledgling cult, but me might have been a charlatan himself.

I think that if he was real, he was a political rebel who was later deified.

It would not be a surprise to me to find out that there was an itinerant preacher or some sort of wanna-be political "savior" around that time with that name - I don't think the name was that uncommon.  

However, for the rest of it, the miracles were probably one of the following:  made up later to pad Jesus' resume, corruptions of some mundane event that actually happened, clever magic tricks taken for miracles.  By the time the gospels were written down, decades had passed, and I'm sure the stories had only gotten better with time.

There were many such preachers with their followers around that area during that time.  If it hadn't been for Paul of Tarsus, christianty probably would have died out as just another jewish splinter group of the era.  He was the one who opened christianty to nonjews, widening both it's appeal and the pool of possible adherents.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!

A dead jew with insanity issues, would be my guess

Quote from: "Velma"It would not be a surprise to me to find out that there was an itinerant preacher or some sort of wanna-be political "savior" around that time with that name - I don't think the name was that uncommon.  

However, for the rest of it, the miracles were probably one of the following:  made up later to pad Jesus' resume, corruptions of some mundane event that actually happened, clever magic tricks taken for miracles.  By the time the gospels were written down, decades had passed, and I'm sure the stories had only gotten better with time.

There were many such preachers with their followers around that area during that time.  If it hadn't been for Paul of Tarsus, christianty probably would have died out as just another jewish splinter group of the era.  He was the one who opened christianty to nonjews, widening both it's appeal and the pool of possible adherents.

^ This ^

The Bin Laden of the day.

Remember, this is the dude (God) who told his people to kill tens of thousands of innocent people including children.

Wha tha fa? And people worship this guy?  

I have not seen much evidence that Jesus or a similar man existed at all.

All the above kind of sum it up for me.  I wrote a rather extensive post on this a while back, but boiling it down:

There is NO evidence to support a Jesus like the one in the New Testament, outside the NT, and we know that IF someone had done the things attributed to him it would have been written down by someone, somewhere.  IF there were a man named Jesus, he was most likely little more than a Rabbi with an attitude who sought to make some local changes to his religion, but certainly did NOT see himself as the "son of god."  If he did, then I go with the one who called him insane.

I can tell you that those who WANT, NEED, and DESIRE to make him real, will fight you to the death to convince you that he did all the things in the NT.  Modern Theologians argue this all the time, but the ones who are most learned on the subject will agree that the Jesus of the NT couldn't have performed the miracles he is supposed to have done in the NT.  He's just a guy who became a poster child for one of the most powerful religions of the past 2000 years, if not the MOST powerful.

I think there is a chance that a historical figure existed who was the basis for the Jesus of religious texts.  However, I think his "resume", to borrow the term, was greatly exaggerated.  If someone bothered to fact check those credentials, he'd so be fired from his position as Messiah.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I think there is a chance that a historical figure existed who was the basis for the Jesus of religious texts.  However, I think his "resume", to borrow the term, was greatly exaggerated.  If someone bothered to fact check those credentials, he'd so be fired from his position as Messiah.

Still having trouble with your  resume?
We mortals are held to a higher standard.

Quote from: "chrome"Hey,

Just wondering what people here generally believe about Jesus.Did he exist...

Never existed as the Bible explains. Of course, "Jesus" was a popular name back in the day, so there were lots of Jesuses.

Quote...was he a real man, if so who was he?

Real men love Jesus. *slappin' me forehead*...sorry. Just popped into my head.
To answer your question, no one will ever know. And he hasn't really popped in to explain any of it lately either.

QuoteDid he perform miracles...

Miracles are contrary to laws of nature. So I reckon not.

Quote...or was he just a clever magician

Well, you have to remember that your questions presumes/presupposes a bible Jesus. All we have is what is written. David Copperfield is a clever magician, but I don't see him able to make pigs run into the water and drown.

Quote... was the story of his life just Chinese whispers...  :pop:

You're welcome

I like the Jesus in South Park.

That's the thing about Jesus. He can be as cool or as assholish as you want him to be.

I think there is enough evidence that a lot of self proclaimed messiahs used to wonder about the area and that other real people have been deified too that it is not unreasonable to think that Jesus was a real man who was a good storyteller that people later told tall tales about; thus creating the Christ Myth.

Quote from: "Gawen"so there were lots of Jesuses.

Since cactus in plural is cacti, wouldn't Jesus in plural be Jesi..?  :P )

I haven't read much evidence that points to Jesus as he exists in the bible being a real man.  I think that yeah, someone named Jesus who was a religious speaker may have existed during this time or probably existed during this time because of how popular a name Jesus was, but that would be more a coincidence than anything and I don't feel comfortable trying to apply this coincidence as any kind of argument for The Biblical Jesus' existence.

Peace..

There was a man responsible for introducing to the public, a specific brand of jewish mysticism which would become Christianity.  Of course the Bible cannot be read as a historical text so the historical account of Jesus as reported in the  New Testament cannot and should not be held as anything more than a symbolic representation of something else.  Most who have studied the accounts of Jesus' life realize that they are stories reminiscent of other more acncient Man/Saviour/God accounts....Part one of the documentary Zeigeist does a pretty good job of illuminating this point.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgRUpDDrb0.

Whoever the historical Jesus was, he surely was one of the most influential figures in the history of this world either by direct intent or by some other agency.

Quote from: "Saracen"Part one of the documentary Zeigeist does a pretty good job of illuminating this point.

No it doesn't.  Quite the opposite: it has enough inaccuracies and lies to diminish the reality of the situation by virtue of the "cry wolf" effect.

Peace....


I was only speaking of the segment with dealth with other Virgin Birth/crucified Saviour accounts in other faith traditions.  I am not endorsing the entire documentary...

Quote from: "Saracen"I was only speaking of the segment with dealth with other Virgin Birth/crucified Saviour accounts in other faith traditions.  I am not endorsing the entire documentary...

Even that portion implies connections that don't actually exist.  Regardless, the bullshit in the rest of the film overshadows what accurate portions it contains, making the whole thing a steaming pile of dogshit.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Gawen"so there were lots of Jesuses.

Since cactus in plural is cacti, wouldn't Jesus in plural be Jesi..?  :P )

Hmmm...*scratchin' me head*....
If you were married to Bobbi....would that mean multiple Bob's...*chucklin*

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Gawen"so there were lots of Jesuses.

Since cactus in plural is cacti, wouldn't Jesus in plural be Jesi..?  :P )

Hmmm...*scratchin' me head*....
If you were married to Bobbi....would that mean multiple Bob's...*chucklin*

No, it would mean multiples of Bobus.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"No, it would mean multiples of Bobus.

Precisely. Now WHY would one marry not one but several people with THAT name?!  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"No, it would mean multiples of Bobus.

Precisely. Now WHY would one marry not one but several people with THAT name?!  

To guarantee their place in Star Wars history as the great-great grandparent of Bobus Fetus?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Saracen"I was only speaking of the segment with dealth with other Virgin Birth/crucified Saviour accounts in other faith traditions.  I am not endorsing the entire documentary...

Even that portion implies connections that don't actually exist.  Regardless, the bullshit in the rest of the film overshadows what accurate portions it contains, making the whole thing a steaming pile of dogshit.

I agree. I thought Zeitgeist was toilet too!

Bobus Fetus...good grief...*laffin*

QuoteI haven't read much evidence that points to Jesus as he exists in the bible being a real man.

I keep seeing this posted here about "not much" evidence for Jesus. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus as portrayed in the bible. NONE. No evidence exists outside the gospels. Eusebius created a highly dubious church history in the 300s CE and there were some interpolations into the "Antiquities of the Jews" (Josephus), the "Annals" (Tacitus), and the "12 Caesars" (Suetonius). The few inserted lines into these three writers have been proven over and over again to be fraudulent interpolations.

I love pointing out to Christians about Philo. Philo lived from about 20BCE to around 50 CE which would have been right during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Jesus is said to have existed on earth. He lived near Jerusalem when Jesus was said to have been born and through the fabricated Herod’s massacre of the babies. He would have heard about the triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus. He would have heard of the teachings, miracles, crucifixion, earthquake, supernatural darkness, resurrection, and ascension to heaven by Jesus. But in all the copious amounts of writings that he wrote and that we still have today does Philo say even one word about Christianity or Jesus? No, not one word. I have "The Works of Philo" at home which is about a 1,000 page book of his writings. Not one time does Philo mention Christianity or Jesus and he certainly would have if Christianity and Jesus had existed at that time. Christians have no answer for this at all.

Philo spread his Greek ideas to Hellenized Jews living in areas outside of Jerusalem like Alexandria, Egypt. These ideas were heavily influenced by Plato and Pythagoras. Philo taught the philosophies of the body being separate from the soul, the trinity, and the logos being the word of god. He called this logos the “son of god”. His Hellenistic teachings heavily influenced many Jewish and Gnostic groups in areas outside of Jerusalem. Philo wrote many religious literary works referencing the Old Testament. We still have much of his writings today yet he says absolutely nothing about a man named Jesus performing miracles and teaching anywhere.

The Jesus story came along AFTER the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 CE. The Jews were forced out of Jerusalem and they were then scattered into Hellenized areas such as Rome and Alexandria. The wiping out of Judaism was seen in the Hellenized areas such as Alexandria and Rome as god rejecting the Palestinian Jews and a new covenant being created for the gentiles as god’s chosen people. The Hellenized Jews created the incarnation or personification of the logos as the saving messiah, the xristos. This is why the gospels were originally written in Greek. Hellenized Greek speaking writers living away from Palestine wrote them, not Hebrew or Aramaic speaking Palestine Jews. The writers of the New Testament used midrash of the Greek translated version of the Old Testament to show fulfilled prophecies of their new messiah. The Gospels are writings that came along way too long after the events they describe and they give supernatural accounts of miracles performed by a man not accounted for in any non-christian source. The New Testament writers read the Greek translated Old Testament and then made their writings fit the prophecies.

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteI haven't read much evidence that points to Jesus as he exists in the bible being a real man.

I keep seeing this posted here about "not much" evidence for Jesus. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus as portrayed in the bible. NONE....etc etc etc

Absotively correct.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"No, it would mean multiples of Bobus.

Precisely. Now WHY would one marry not one but several people with THAT name?!  

To guarantee their place in Star Wars history as the great-great grandparent of Bobus Fetus?

Ah! The great merc of the fetus dynasty... You do know he gets aborted in the course of one of the movies, right..? Very horrifying to them pro-lifers.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteI haven't read much evidence that points to Jesus as he exists in the bible being a real man.

I keep seeing this posted here about "not much" evidence for Jesus. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus as portrayed in the bible. NONE....etc etc etc

Absotively correct.

Just noticed that was my comment being quoted.

I'm not personally educated on the subject, so I word it the way I do to reflect that.  Also, I specifically worded my post in that way because I was hoping Jac would chime in on the subject since in an earlier post he grouped historical Jesus deniers in with moon landing deniers.  I wanted to see if he might respond to hear his side of the argument since he seems relatively intelligent and certain of the existence of a historical biblical Jesus.  Personally, I've never come across any evidence that he did, but like I said - I haven't really studied the subject.

I would love to see what "evidence" Jac has for a historical Jesus. I spend a great deal reading about any "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the New Testament. In all the years that I have been reading on this subject, I have found absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I am ready to counter each and every possible account of possible evidence with hard facts. Also, you stating that this person Jac groups me and many, many others who believe that Jesus was not a historical person into the same category of people who deny the moon landing worries me. That is certainly not the case when it comes to evidence of a historical Jesus. Jac sounds very Christian.

Quote from: "lundberg500"I would love to see what "evidence" Jac has for a historical Jesus. I spend a great deal reading about any "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the New Testament. In all the years that I have been reading on this subject, I have found absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I am ready to counter each and every possible account of possible evidence with hard facts. Also, you stating that this person Jac groups me and many, many others who believe that Jesus was not a historical person into the same category of people who deny the moon landing worries me. That is certainly not the case when it comes to evidence of a historical Jesus. Jac sounds very Christian.

Jac is very christian, and like the others very blind.

But I think you should make a new topic and talk about the historicity of jesus with him. I'd love to see who could "out-fact" the other.  

Quote from: "tymygy"But I think you should make a new topic and talk about the historicity of jesus with him. I'd love to see who could "out-fact" the other.  

Seconded.

I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Quote from: "lundberg500"I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Because he focuses on philosophy over facts.

Quote from: "lundberg500"I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Two reasons:

1. Because my time has been extremely limited over the past two weeks, and what little time I've had here I've wanted to put into the thread on Hell. That is, after all, one of the most common objections against Christianity, and so it deserves the fullest consideration.

2. Because arguments against the historicity of Jesus are, to be completely frank, silly. There are plenty of things we can argue about Jesus. How much of the words attributed to him did he actually say? What language(s) did he speak in? What was his eschatological position? What was his overall theological position -- was he closer to the Pharisees or the Essenes, for instances? What was his relationship to the Christian church (this may seem obvious, but the issue of Pauline origins are important and must be examined)? How did Jesus see himself? How should Jesus be classified generally -- a feminist, social revolutionary, moral sage, pacifist, etc.? Why was he crucified, and what did he do to so enrage the religious leadership of his day? What is the relationship between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of faith" (this question, I might add, has been debated very strongly over the three quests for the historical Jesus, but almost always makes severe methodological mistakes from the outset. The field of study called "Biblical Theology," which is distinguished from the field called "Systematic Theology," is deeply divided on the question of whether or not we can even make an appropriate division between "what the text means" and "what the text means." For more on this, I highly recommend G. Hasel's excellent Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed)?

These and myriads of others are the kinds of things Jesus-scholars regularly debate. Whether or not he actually existed? That's a fringe idea, to put it politely. The type of "historical scholarship" you have to engage in to come to that conclusion is precisely the same that leads us to the conclusion that Napoleon never existed (http://books.google.com/books?id=N8VBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false).

With that said, there is a great deal we can say about the historical Jesus, and I would like to get into some of the evidence that we do have in the near future. For now, I'll simply leave you with a quote by John Dominic Crossan:

Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus

That from page five of his book Who Killed Jesus? This was not written by a raving Bible believing Christian such as myself. Crossan chaired the Jesus Seminar for many years and has publicly debated men such as N. T. Wright on whether or not the resurrection of Jesus happened at all (he denies it). He considers himself a Christian, but only the broadest sense of the word, as he most definitely denies basic tenants such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and inerrany of Scripture, and even the traditional authorship assigned to the Gospels (he believes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be second century forgeries). Despite this, he is a scholar of the highest caliper, and primarily a historian. If he makes this kind of statement, it shows just incredibly far one must go to try to deny Jesus' existence all together.

Obviously, just because Crossan says so doesn't make it right. I only point him out as a quick example of why I don't pay too much attention to the "Jesus never existed" crowd, as there are much more important historical discussions to be had. If you would like to see a rough draft of a sample paper I wrote many years ago for a local seminary to help their undergraduate students get a feel for the process of paper writing (I suggest the rough draft because the final edition cut a great deal of detail, since it was only intended to be an example, and even the paper is a summary at best), you can see it here (http://www.lru.edu/userfiles/documents/library/researchsamples/reworked%20draft.doc). The focus of the paper is whether or not Jesus' resurrection can be considered a historical event.

Again, I would like to have a discussion on this matter in the near future. Right now, I'm just a bit more pressed for time than I'm comfortable with to take up such a detailed subject.

If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

Quote from: "i_am_i"If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

On the assumption that God does not exist, you are of course right. Do you have any proof of the non-existence of God  so that I should adopt your position? A mere lack of belief isn't enough, because if we have historical reasons to believe that Jesus actually did those things, then that would just furnish evidence of God's existence, as would any miracle. If, on the other hand, we know that God does not exist, then we can dismiss miracles out of hand.

So this comes down to the definition of your atheism. Are you a strong atheist who knows that God does not exist? If so, your statements are fair, and I will ask you for your evidence that God does not exist. Or are you a weak atheist who simply lacks belief in God? If so, then I would ask you to retract your statement in recognition of the fact that we do not know that such things are impossible, because that presumes knowledge that you do not have (the impossibility of miracles via the non-existence of God).

Quote from: "Jac3510"A mere lack of belief isn't enough,

Proof that unicorns are real.  Thanks, Jac.

QuoteJesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus

I know you just didn't mention Josephus and Tacitus. The fraudulent interpolations into these writers have been proven over and over again. It doesn't matter who is stating that this is evidence. This is NOT evidence at all. I have studied the writings of these two men quite a bit. I read the writings of Josephus and Tacitus at home for excellent insight into the times in which they lived. Let me assure you that these few interpolations interrupt the flow of their narratives greatly and they make absolutely no sense when reading their work. I will show you briefly how these were interpolations.

JOSEPHUS: Josephus wrote two very important histories; "History of the Jewish War" (70’s CE) and "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). The work that you are referring to is the "Antiquities of the Jews". Right now I am reading his other work, "History of the Jewish War". Even though this book was written during the 70s CE, do you know how many times he mentions Christianity? ZERO. That's because Christianity did not develop until AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

Here is the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus writing “Antiquities of the Jews”:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Not a single writer before the 4th century â€" not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â€" in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to these words.

All manuscripts before Eusebius (263-339 CE) do not have the passage in question. Also, no form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the works of any writer until after Eusebius.

There is nothing said by Josephus about Jesus or Christianity in his “Jewish War”(70s CE). In the section on Pilate in the earlier "Jewish War" he outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). In the "Antiquities", these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In "Jewish War", no mention of Jesus or Christianity is included. Also, throughout the "Antiquities of the Jews" there is not one mention of Christianity or Jesus besides this one small interpolation. The work of Josephus is voluminous and exhaustive. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure leaders, yet he says absolutely nothing about Christianity or Jesus.

The statement “he was the Christ” is very out of place in its present position and disturbs the flow of thought. Also, Josephus being a devout Jew would NEVER claim Jesus as the Christ. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, Josephus has nothing but bad things to say. He condemns the whole movement of rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple. And yet the Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus?

Eubesius’s texts always sound like Eubesius. The phrases “maker of many miracles”, “tribe of Christians”, and “until this day” are found throughout the writings of Eusebius. Eusebius used the same trope or habit that a writer has that is relatively unique and acts as a fingerprint in identifying that writer’s work. The most used trope of Eusebius was the phrase “even to this present day” or “to the present time”. Eusebius liked to use this phrase a lot, especially when referring to proof of the truth not only being seen in the past but still being able to be seen in his present time. He used this same trope even when quoting other writers. Also, the term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS (maker of miraculous works) is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus. The Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in his "Demonstratio" very closely.

TACITUS: The work you are referring to is his "Annals" written around 109 CE. Here is the passage:

Tacitus, Annals, 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative and it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. Tacitus does not mention Christians ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the Annals nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage.

The first copy of the manuscript was dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. This is the Beneventan rustic capitals manuscript that made it’s way to the Monte Cassino where another copy was made around 1038-1055 CE. As the first copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. It is even admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity.

The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.This story, in nearly the same words, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century CE and the same type of slander against Nero is to be found in the writings of Eusebius.Tacitus was writing long before the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. Nero blaming the Christians comes from these apocryphal writings Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul proving that these lines MUST have been interpolated into the Annals.

In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second. This manuscript has been examined and it was found that there are signs of an 'e' being erased. It was discovered that under ultraviolet light that the 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρησÏ,,ÏŒÏ, (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.

The wrong title is used for Pontius Pilate of procurator. The term prefect should have been used. Also, Pilate is mentioned here over 25 years after his rule with no mention of a prior reference to him in another part of the Annals. Tacitus was writing the Annals of accounts year by year, hence the name. He surely would have referred the reader back to an earlier book where he mentions Pilate, especially after being 25 years since he was in office.

Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Many writers called Judaism a superstition. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition. Chrestus (the actual word used by Tacitus), means "the good", a complementary title for just about anyone. Chrestos was a term used in mystic religions, to denote a perfected being. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition.

Like I said, the two small interpolations into Josephus and Tacitus have been proven as forgeries for a very long time. John Remsberg even wrote about these in his book "Christ Myth" written around 1909. It doesn't matter who is quoting these lines as evidence, they are NOT evidence.

QuoteBecause arguments against the historicity of Jesus are, to be completely frank, silly. There are plenty of things we can argue about Jesus.

Arguments about a historical Jesus are silly? Discussions about a historical Jesus are extremely important. If a historical Jesus cannot be proven then Christianity is SEVERELY weakened.

QuoteHow much of the words attributed to him did he actually say? What language(s) did he speak in? What was his eschatological position? What was his overall theological position -- was he closer to the Pharisees or the Essenes, for instances?

These are just speculations that are a complete waste of time if this god man never even existed. In all my studies on this subject I have never turned up any evidence for a historical Jesus. I know 100% that he did not exist. I am sure of this. I know all about the Hellenistic influence after the Jewish Diaspora in 70 CE and how the Jesus story developed outside Palestine in Hellenized areas such as Alexandria and Rome. Most Christians I know have absolutely no idea about Hellenism and how this greatly affected the development of Christianity. I will never understand how any rational intelligent human being can believe in stories about a god man dying and resurrecting without any evidence at all. This completely baffles my mind. I just can't think that way. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"A mere lack of belief isn't enough,

Proof that unicorns are real.  Thanks, Jac.

You know better, PS. If I see some droppings in my front yard, you and I can both be pretty darn sure that they are not from a unicorn. Now, on what logical basis can I say, "They did not come from unicorns?" There is only one way.

Unicorns do not exist, and therefore, they could not have come from unicorns.

Against this, we can make a very good probabilistic argument which to state formally would require invoking Bayesian logic, in which I am nowhere near proficient enough. But outside of formal presentation, we make these kinds of logical inferences naturally every day, even if we don't take the time to systematize our thought process. To use a common analogy, suppose you had a two boxes, one with ten balls and one with ten thousand balls, both the same size, and in each was one with your name painted on it. Now suppose that you pushed a button that dropped one ball out, and on the third time you pressed it, the ball with your name popped out. You could make a very good probabilistic argument that you are looking at the box with ten rather than ten thousand balls. So we could do the same with the unicorn argument. Granted that I have no reason to believe that unicorns exist, and given that I've seen a great many number of animals leave droppings before, the chances are far more likely that they came from some other animal rather than the unicorn. They are so great, in fact, that I would be a fool to believe that they did come from a unicorn without excellent reasons to believe so. Testing the droppings and finding out that they come from a dog would only prove the point.

In any case, what I cannot logically say is, "I lack belief in unicorns, and therefore, I these droppings don't come from unicorns."

To put it in a logical form, you would actually have to say:

1. Some animal left droppings on my lawn
2. I have no reason to believe that unicorns exist
3. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that unicorns left droppings on my lawn.

(3) here is logical, but it is a far cry from, "Therefore, it is impossible for unicorns to have left droppings on my lawn," which is, mutatis mutandis, exactly what J argued with reference to Jesus.

In sum, he can argue that the miracles of Jesus are impossible if he has a positive knowledge of God's non-existence. He can argue that he has no reason to believe that they actually happened given his lack of belief in God. He cannot argue that his lack of believe in God means that the miracles of Jesus are impossible, and therefore, that such a Jesus never existed. He can even make the probabilistic argument that the miracles very likely didn't happen, and such a Jesus very likely didn't exist, shy of good historical evidence to the contrary. I am perfectly fine with that, because it allows us to discuss what needs to be discussed: the historical evidence. But his initial phrasing is invalid.

---------------------------------------------

lund,

I have already said that I don't have time to get into these details. I've appealed to the authority of Crossan here shy of the time to make my own case. If you think Crossan is an idiot, then that's your problem. As it stands, your argument are old, tired, and are rejected by the people who have real educations in this matter. Yep, that's an appeal to authority and is not intended to present a logical argument. You should spend less time at the conspiracy sites we all know and love and more time reading what actual historians have said on the matter. In any case, statements by you such as:

QuoteI know 100% that he did not exist.

imply that you've not done much study at all. This really is beyond absurd. If you have such evidence, be sure to submit it to the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (http://www.brill.nl/jshj). They would be thrilled to read it, and you would immediately become the world's most renowned biblical scholar, if not the world's most renowned historian.

Again, I will take up these issues in the near future -- maybe a week or two out -- and maybe we can have a serious discussion. For now, I simply do not have the time to invest in a proper discussion of the evidence.

Quoteyour argument are old, tired, and are rejected by the people who have real educations in this matter.

Jac, this is simply not true. I also meant that I am personally convinced 100% that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. That's my personal conclusion. I can tell that I am dealing with a fundamentalist Christian here.  

Quote from: "lundberg500"Jac, this is simply not true. I also meant that I am personally convinced 100% that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. That's my personal conclusion. I can tell that I am dealing with a fundamentalist Christian here.  :shake:

Unbelievable..

Quotethe question naturally arises why you would be so inclined to believe a conspiracy theory on such weak evidence

I have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?

QuoteI have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?

Again, since your studies are so exhaustive, I simply look forward to your publication in a peer reviewed journal such as JSHJ. If you have come to such a firm conclusion so radically opposed to what non-Christian scholars have concluded, I'm sure they are eager to see your ground breaking research. Further, since they are exhaustive, be sure to include your in your bibliography all the relevant studies from the first, second, and third quests for the historical Jesus. Again, I'm going to take you at your word that your studies have been exhaustive, so I'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists)
You'll notice that the first several listings are of atheists in scholarly professions.

I like the minimal facts approach when it comes to the questions about Jesus.

http://warrantedbelief.wordpress.com/20 ... -approach/ (http://warrantedbelief.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-minimal-facts-approach/)

QuoteThere are many facts that surround the life of Jesus and early Christianity from the New Testament, other Christian writers, non-Christian writers, and archaeology, but not all of them are universally accepted as historical fact.  What a minimal facts approach considers as historical evidence, therefore, is data that are both strongly evidenced and accepted by almost all scholars who study the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.  It says nothing about whether the person using this approach considers the New Testament to be the inspired word of God or not, but it simply treats the New Testament as any other historical document, so that those who do not consider it to be the word of God must still account the evidence presented.  This approach allows for a comprehensive case for the resurrection, for not only can it be used to show Jesus’ resurrection to be the best explanation of the known historical facts, it is also sufficient to refute the opposing theories as to what happened on Easter Sunday.  There are 4 facts that are strongly evidenced and granted by virtually all scholars on the subject (In the high 90’s in percentage) and 1 fact that is not as well accepted, but that still enjoys acceptance among 75% of such scholars.  These facts, which we will look at one at a time, are: Jesus’ death by crucifixion, the belief among Jesus’ disciples that He rose from the dead and appeared to them, the church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed, the skeptic James was suddenly changed, and the slightly less accepted fact, the tomb of Jesus was empty.

When it comes to true scholars who have the appropriate academic credentials anyone who could produce compelling warranted evidence that Jesus never existed would have to have an exhaustive about of powerful data in order to pass the peer review process.

QuoteI'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

You are honestly looking forward me publishing an article? Are you serious?

Other members here, is Jac always this way?

Quoteperhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple.

It's really not just me. I didn't come up with this theory all on my own. I know it's hard for you to believe but there are many, many others who believe the same thing as I do.

QuoteYou can have whatever last word you want on this

Somehow, I don't believe that you will let me get a last word on you...    

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists)
You'll notice that the first several listings are of atheists in scholarly professions.

Just for clarification, I didn't say that the entire scholarly community is Christian. I said the scholarly community that deals with the historical Jesus acknowledges, at bare minimum, his existence. There is a broad consensus around several major facts, but of course there is debate even on this consensus, but his existence? No, that's beyond dispute.

If anyone really believes that Jesus never existed, I strongly recommend to them the aforementioned link on Napoleon's non-existence. It shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to read the entire essay and it is very informative. I would also recommend them to Baruch Halpern's The First Historians, for while he doesn't deal with Jesus' existence, this non-Christian, highly critical scholar has done a fantastic job pointing out the faults in historical Pyrrhonism and historical positivism, which sets the general methodological approach for dealing with any question, including, especially, those like our present issue, namely, the historical Jesus and what can be known about Him.

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Quote from: "freeservant"I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

I'm happy to point out that it doesn't matter how many people believe a false thing, it's still false.

I don't understand how you can dismiss unicorns so easily, and not dismiss the Jesus myth with the same ease.
The idea of Jesus was used as a control mechanism and nothing more.
Who are we to doubt the accuracy of 1700 year old documents, revised from 2000 year old documents?  That's a long ass game of telephone if you ask me.
Jac will never be convinced that he is wrong, and he will never convince the people on this forum that they are wrong.  
Imagine magnets, - to -
End of discussion.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

On the assumption that God does not exist, you are of course right. Do you have any proof of the non-existence of God  so that I should adopt your position? A mere lack of belief isn't enough, because if we have historical reasons to believe that Jesus actually did those things, then that would just furnish evidence of God's existence, as would any miracle. If, on the other hand, we know that God does not exist, then we can dismiss miracles out of hand.

Did I say God with a capital G? Not at all.

Obviously you believe the stories told about Jesus in the New Testament actually happened. There isn't any mystery about it, that's your agenda, that's what you're about here, that God with a capital G exists and Jesus is His with a capital H's son who died for everybody's sins.

Quote from: "Jac3510"So this comes down to the definition of your atheism. Are you a strong atheist who knows that God does not exist? If so, your statements are fair, and I will ask you for your evidence that God does not exist. Or are you a weak atheist who simply lacks belief in God? If so, then I would ask you to retract your statement in recognition of the fact that we do not know that such things are impossible, because that presumes knowledge that you do not have (the impossibility of miracles via the non-existence of God).

Again, I don't understand what it is you're saying. My definition of atheism? I fail to see how you arrived at that.

What do you mean when you say that we don't know that it's impossible for an executed man to be dead for three days and then come back to life and get up and start walking around? Are you actually saying that as far as you're concerned that isn't impossible?

Also, your categories of atheists is completely, and there's no other word for it, jive. I'm nothing like either of those two simplistic caricatures of atheists you've described here.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Yeah, it's not sufficiently established.  Saying it is doesn't make it so.  Also, new converts to a religion in no way make the Jesus myth more factual.  Or were you joking?  Boy, I sure hope so.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Ad populum fallacy.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Ad homineim attacks are a reliable indicator of a failed argument on the part of the insulter.

QuoteLook, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

Scholars were wrong about the luminiferous æther; and that had no implications, really, regarding faith.  In this matter, regarding faith, I'd think the likelihood of error would be higher.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

Plenty of teens are airheads. Plenty of them aren't. You're attacking the person and not the facts. Just because a bunch of people believe Jesus wasn't a myth doesn't make it true. There are a number of scholars on the very subject who think his existence was highly unlikely, and i don't just mean the God-man hybrid who can walk on water.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Thumpy nailed it, this is Ad populum. "The masses believe it, therefore it must be true. As in, "Eat shit! Ten million flies can't be wrong.'" ~ Bill Maher

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteI have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?

Again, since your studies are so exhaustive, I simply look forward to your publication in a peer reviewed journal such as JSHJ. If you have come to such a firm conclusion so radically opposed to what non-Christian scholars have concluded, I'm sure they are eager to see your ground breaking research. Further, since they are exhaustive, be sure to include your in your bibliography all the relevant studies from the first, second, and third quests for the historical Jesus. Again, I'm going to take you at your word that your studies have been exhaustive, so I'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

It is hard to start on the subject of Jesus' historicity with out a large commitment of time. I have recently had an extensive and in depth debate about this very subject. I did not do any ground breaking research by my standards but it does not mean that we cannot make a very valid argument against Jesus with the evidence we do have. You treat Jesus like he is more special than any other deity that has been worshiped by fearful, ignorant people. I do not say ignorant in the pejorative sense but in the literal sense of the word. Just because people have once again, as a large social group, decided to believe one ridiculous thing (like a man throwing lightning bolts at you when he is pissed) it does not make this particular instance more or less important and special to those who believed it then and believe it now.

I can tell you right now, based on what I have researched, that there is no solid evidence that Jesus existed. I have personally addressed some of the strongest arguments I could find on the topic. The fact is, a belief in a historical Jesus is purely a leap of faith, thinly veiled with a web of pseudo-science and highly disputable sources. The only argument I have not been able to counter is the dispute over Pauline (or Saul) texts. That is only because the argument boils down to personal interpretation. Some of the arguments leveled against this topic so far have touched on some very valid topics and I can show you why you are incorrect for the reasons you dismissed them. Whenever you have the time (and I know just how time consuming it is) to respond please do. PM me when you do so I can respond to you.

And by the way. Saying that people should submit this and that to publications or journals is a little childish don't you think? I mean there are scholars on either side of this issue and many in between as well. There is no overwhelming consensus on whether Jesus was real or not. There is no overwhelming textual or physical evidence for either side of the argument. I have an argument that boils down to the irrationality needed to posit the existence of Jesus based off the evidence. There is no extraordinary evidence. So why make it seem like you are not the one who has to bear the burden of proof? You came onto a website full of atheists for a reason I assume. Why would you charge everyone else with giving you evidence and not even have your argument prepared? Or did you just come on to argue?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Ad populum fallacy.

I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Yet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.  So the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

New converts are rarely gained on evidence, but rather on emotional appeals.

^ bravo    to radical
Above is the essence of the Atheist/skeptic/etc point of view.  The burden of proof is not on us to prove that something didn't exist, when its existence has yet to be proven in the first place.  If there was any physical evidence of Jesus' existence, then sure, the skeptics would have to prove that that evidence was somehow falsified or incorrect.  This isn't the case.

Quote from: "freeservant"I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Given that you've presented no supporting evidence, this appeal-to-belief fallacy holds.  However many people hold with Christianity, or however fast it spread, is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.  After all, in Maine one could simply go to a tackle shop and ask about the fishing law, or one can look up the law in a library.  That is not the case with Jesus.  Therefore, your only support is the number of adherents.  That renders your argument fallacious.

QuoteYet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.

QuoteThe more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary ought the evidence be.  The claim that Jesus existed is acceptable, to my mind; it's possible that he was a historical personage, although I haven't studied the issue as deeply as others here, apparently.  However, evidence of his godhood, and resurrection, would need to be undebatably firm.  It is not, however.

QuoteSo the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

Which, in this case, it isn't.  Using the Moon landing as an example: if one had a sufficiently powerful telescope, and knew where to look, one could see the abandoned LEMs.  No such firm evidence appears for Jesus Christ.

Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"~~~snip~~ not fairly addressing my point about minimal suficiency ~~~snip~~
Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

My point still stands and not everybody believes in the moon landing, are you not familiar with this?

The skeptic could contend that the telescope is ringed.

Do you know of the The Münchhausen Trilemma?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma)

and in regard to Faith it is about trust:

Quote: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)

Given the skeptics trilemma and your strong conviction about Jesus or rather the non-existence there of are you properly strong in your conviction?  Or would an actual effort to address the minimally sufficient evidence be a problem for you?

Quote from: "freeservant"I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Yet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.  So the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

New evidence? How about any evidence to begin with? Jesus is a bunch of ancient hearsay that some people finally decided to write down.... in conflicting version of events. Writing something down does not make it true. And the historicity of Jesus is nothing short of clouded. There is no consensus on his existence or lack of or whether or certainly not that he performed miracles.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

in regard to Faith it is about trust:

Quote: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)

Right, but you conveniently (and hypocritically) ignore the fact that the Bible has the following to say about faith (as the Bible defines it)-

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)
“Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17)

So, as Thumpalumpacus pointed out, searching for evidence in order to believe in Jesus reveals a distinct lack of faith.

Whilst searching for evidence before actually forming a belief is the reasonable way to go about things, doing so actually runs counter to the Christian basis for faith as revealed in scripture. That Christian faith is about believing without evidence is no more clearly demonstrated than  in the story of Doubting Thomas, in John 20. “Then Jesus told [Thomas], "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (verse 29) In other words- "Blessed are those who believe without evidence."

Perhaps this is why you find the path so hard when Jesus promised in Matt 11:30 that it will be easy? You lack the faith necessary to receive the Spirit so that you can be yoked together with God to plough the straight path? (Or perhaps you haven't received the Spirit because the promises in the Bible are complete bunkum. :D )

Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

Quote from: "DropLogic"Lurker, welcome and nice work.

Thanks  

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"~~~snip~~ not fairly addressing my point about minimal suficiency ~~~snip~~
Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

If you're going to allege unfairness on my part, kindly don't snip the fucking example out.  Evidence your charge or withdraw it, if you have any honor.

QuoteMy point still stands and not everybody believes in the moon landing, are you not familiar with this?

That doesn't, however, mean that there is credible evidence for Jesus.  

QuoteThe skeptic could contend that the telescope is ringed.

The skeptic oftens makes retarded contentions.  That is not evidence that Jesus existed, or was divine.

QuoteGiven the skeptics trilemma and your strong conviction about Jesus or rather the non-existence there of are you properly strong in your conviction?

Hey, perhaps you should take an English class.  I clearly stated that it is possible to my mind that Jesus could be a historical personage.

QuoteOr would an actual effort to address the minimally sufficient evidence be a problem for you?

When you present evidence, I'll address it.  All you've presented so far is (il)logic.  And reality doesn't comport to what man says it must be, no matter your bleating.

Quote from: "DropLogic"Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

haha I'd agree, very nice first post.  

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

haha I'd agree, very nice first post.  

Indeed. Well done. Relates very well to the Does Atheism Have Faith thread right next to this one.

Instead of just nailing up Jesus, if the Romans got truly serious, and "tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout the land" would Jesus have been able to resurrect and scare his disciples?
Would our Easter egg hunts take a more interesting form?

Quote from: "Lapsed Lurker"“Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17)

What translation is that? It's not the KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, YLT, ASV, RSV, NKJV, 21KJV, NKJV . . . it's not even the NLT or the Message for the love of God. The word you emphasize isn't even implied in Greek. Here's the KJV, since it appears you used it for Heb 11:1:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The "so" here is ara, which carries the idea of "therefore" or "consequently." He's concluding an argument that goes back to 10:13:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

The point is obvious enough. You are saved by believing in Jesus, but in order to believe in Him you have to hear about Him, but in order to hear about Him someone has to tell you about Him. So believing in Him happens when you hear about Him from someone else. And this, by the way, is an important part of the larger context in which Rom 9-11 is dealing with a section on Israel and how they are related to the largely Gentile church.

The passage does not say that faith "only" comes by hearing. Paul is making a point about the need for evangelism, especially as it relates to Israel. If we don't tell people, how will they come to know? And what are we to tell them? We are to give them evidence so that they might believe. "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men" (2 Cor. 5:11).

Beyond all that, the English definition of "faith" has nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek words (aman and pistis, respectively). Both refer to certainty, with or without evidence. If you are certain that something is true, more literally, if you can declare a person, promise, statement, or fact trustworthy or reliable, you have pistis or aman. Translate that however you want. If you don't like the English word "faith," use another word. But to say that those words mean "belief without evidence" is absolutely mistaken. One passage is sufficient to prove that point:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side,

I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:24-31, NIV)[/list]
Notice the underlined passages. Thomas received a report that Jesus was alive, but he refused to believe (pistis). He demanded evidence, a personal experience that he could not deny. Jesus gave it to him, and upon receiving that evidence, he believed (pistis). Jesus then said that he believed on the basis of seeing Jesus, but people who believed without seeing would be more greatly blessed (same word in both cases: pistis). John then comments that he recorded this story, among others, so that the reader would believe (same word again: pistis). In other words, John has provided evidence for his case in the form of eye-witness testimony.

Now, you may be like Thomas, and such evidence may be insufficient for you. As I have said before, we can talk about the veracity of the evidence later. For now, I am only pointing out that to argue that faith is belief in absence of evidence is absurd, because the Bible itself clearly rejects such a notion.

In sum: faith is not belief in absence of evidence - it is the considering of a person, promise, statement, or fact as true, trustworthy, and reliable. Whatever degree of evidence that plays into your declaring something true is irrelevant to the definition itself. Some require a lot of evidence before they come to faith. Some require less. But everyone needs to at least be told about (in some form or fashion) the statement before they can decide whether or not it is true, trustworthy, and reliable.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The point is obvious enough. You are saved by believing in Jesus, but in order to believe in Him you have to hear about Him, but in order to hear about Him someone has to tell you about Him. So believing in Him happens when you hear about Him from someone else.

Believing in Him with a capital H happens when you hear about Him with a capital H from someone else? Tell me, then, how long does it take for one to come to believe in Him with a capital H after one hears about Him with a capital H from someone else? Is it supposed to happen right away or does it take a couple of days?

Is Jesus the only thing one is supposed to believe in when they hear about Jesus from someone else? One should be skeptical about everything else, like, say, believing what the Gutterguard guy is trying to sell you, but one should right away, straight off the bat, believe in Jesus because someone else tells him about it, is that right?

When is it okay for one to be discerning, for one to question, for one to, as they say, smell a rat? Any time except when you hear about Jesus from someone else?

Believing in Jesus because someone else told you about Jesus is a good thing, is that correct? Is this what you're saying here?

Jesus was a great guy, and I will now tell his story, realistically.

In Nazareth, the Jews were basically the peasants, with the Roman ruling-class owning the vast majority of the wealth and property.  So along comes Jesus, a God-loving Jew who is a real man of the people.  When a town is hungry, he feeds them with fish and bread.  When people felt poor and over-taxed, he gave them wine, and made them feel more rich.  And where people were sick, he cared for them.

It's not that he literally turned water into wine, but by bringing people together, he could make the poor feel good about themselves (It's sort of a high-class thing, like giving a homeless man a lobster platter.  Also, alcohol isn't a half bad distraction if your life reallysucks :crazy: .  The Romans just want to kill him anyway, he's bringing the proletariat dangerously close to rising up, and now he's vulnerable, so they capture and crucify him.

His disciples take his story, and run with it.  Paul, I think it was, just wants to amass followers.  He claimed to have seen the "Messiah" rise from the grave.  He lied to rally people behind his cause.  He wanted power, which is sad because when he turned Jesus' cause into a religion, he defied everything Jesus stood for.  It wasn't until 350 years after his death that these stories were compiled into scripture.  I hardly think any of his magical powers, or speeches about being the son of God, had been properly documented, except as a game of Telephone.

Historically, Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.  That being said, it's not an original story.  I think that Mithra is the first "Jesus" story in history, dating back to ancient Persia.  Mithra was the son of a Persian God, born of a virgin on the Winter Solstice, baptized in a river, healed the sick, fed the hungry, had 12 disciples, was crucified, and ascended to paradise on the Spring Equinox (Eostre.)

This tells me that Paul wasn't being creative when he decided to turn Jesus into a superhero.  He had a cause, and he taught things that must of had actual substance and meaning (otherwise no one would have given a shit.)  Based on the subtext of the story, I think Jesus was a Gandhi-esque peaceful revolutionary, who wanted to change the world for the better.

This is just what I get when I read the bible.  They say you need to take this stuff with a grain of salt, this is the story I get reading between the lines on the New Testament.

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.

Ignorant of what exactly?

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.

Yes, we are well aware of the assertion.  Now please provide some evidence.

The funny thing is, it doesn't even matter.  It really doesn't.  Zombies obviously aren't real and neither is magic, so the fundamental biblical Jesus certainly didn't exist.  If some other kind-of-fits-the-bill Jesus existed, does that really matter?  I mean, it could do nothing but injure the credibility of the Christian religion, right?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.

Yes, we are well aware of the assertion.  Now please provide some evidence.

The funny thing is, it doesn't even matter.  It really doesn't.  Zombies obviously aren't real and neither is magic, so the fundamental biblical Jesus certainly didn't exist.  If some other kind-of-fits-the-bill Jesus existed, does that really matter?  I mean, it could do nothing but injure the credibility of the Christian religion, right?

Well yes, I suppose an objective look of the actual man who has been twisted into a God can't help the credibility of the religion that calls him god.  My point is just that the myths weren't just made up, they were stuck onto an actual person from that place and time.  "Jesus" (Assuming that was even his name) was an actual person, from a historical point of view, Jesus was real.  He just wasn't a magical Jewish Zombie.  He was a Socialist Revolutionary.

Also, why didn't any of the historians mentioned mention the earthquakes and zombie riots?

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.

Yes, we are well aware of the assertion.  Now please provide some evidence.

The funny thing is, it doesn't even matter.  It really doesn't.  Zombies obviously aren't real and neither is magic, so the fundamental biblical Jesus certainly didn't exist.  If some other kind-of-fits-the-bill Jesus existed, does that really matter?  I mean, it could do nothing but injure the credibility of the Christian religion, right?

Well yes, I suppose an objective look of the actual man who has been twisted into a God can't help the credibility of the religion that calls him god.  My point is just that the myths weren't just made up, they were stuck onto an actual person from that place and time.  "Jesus" (Assuming that was even his name) was an actual person, from a historical point of view, Jesus was real.  He just wasn't a magical Jewish Zombie.  He was a Socialist Revolutionary.

Again, these are all assertions I've heard before.  Assertions honestly don't interest me very much.  Evidence interests me.  From my standpoint you are sharing your belief regarding a historical Jesus, but you seem to have mistaken your own belief for being a fact.  Facts have evidence that back them up.  So let's see that evidence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Lapsed Lurker""Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17)

What translation is that?

J.B.Phillips Translation of the New Testament

Quote from: "Jac"The word you emphasize isn't even implied in Greek.

It is implied in the Greek and English by reading the entire passage, which asserts that the faith that saves only comes through hearing the word of Christ (believing the gospel when you hear it/read it) and not from human wisdom that relies on reason and evidence. This same attitude can be found elsewhere in Paul's letters, such as in 1 Corinthians 1:17, 20-24 â€"

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelâ€"not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
[...]
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

Quote from: "Jac"Thomas received a report that Jesus was alive, but he refused to believe (pistis). He demanded evidence, a personal experience that he could not deny. Jesus gave it to him, and upon receiving that evidence, he believed (pistis). Jesus then said that he believed on the basis of seeing Jesus, but people who believed without seeing would be more greatly blessed (same word in both cases: pistis). John then comments that he recorded this story, among others, so that the reader would believe (same word again: pistis). In other words, John has provided evidence for his case in the form of eye-witness testimony.

And an eye-witness testimony that alone supports such an extraordinary claim is no evidence at all. That’s the attitude we see (and some of us will relate to) in Thomas’s doubting. He represents what Paul refers to as worldly wisdom, which wants solid evidence before it can accept such fantastical claims as true, regardless of the testimony of others. But it is those who accept the claim on faith alone ("believe without seeing") that are the ones blessed by Jesus, the ones who are doing right. So the passage is an attempt to encourage this level of (what I would call) childlike gullibility and to discourage skepticism and maturity in our approach to truth and knowledge.

Don’t put the Lord to the test is another device to stop the skeptical enquirer from devising experiments that can help establish sound evidence that would demonstrate that there is in fact a supernatural entity out there, looking out for us, demanding our worship like a needy narcissist, threatening to smite us if it doesn't eventually get its own way. But no, we are not permitted to conduct such experiments because of the importance of believing on faith alone.  :D  

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” (Matt 11:25)
“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 18:3)

And, that this emotional appeal is the basis for the believer's faith is also revealed in 2 Thes 2:10-11, where it is claimed -

“They perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.”  

In that verse we see the writer revealing his true reasons for believing the gospel by projecting onto the disbeliever the same reliance on emotion to reject the gospel that he has for accepting it.

Religious faith is all about the emotion - the warm fuzzies caused by belief in a heavenly afterlife and in a powerful alpha male who has your best interests at heart. Facts, on the other hand, are often cold and hard, and It takes maturity to accept them when they're unpleasant. Children are often protected from them because it is thought they can't cope with them. Some children invent fictions to protect themselves from them. ...and some children never grow up.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Again, these are all assertions I've heard before.  Assertions honestly don't interest me very much.  Evidence interests me.  From my standpoint you are sharing your belief regarding a historical Jesus, but you seem to have mistaken your own belief for being a fact.  Facts have evidence that back them up.  So let's see that evidence.

Let me start off by saying, my interpretation of things is nothing more than a story.  It's what I see when I shed away all the magic tricks in the bible, but it's doubtful that my idea of Jesus can account for anything that actually happened.  I just like to think about it that way, and it seems plausible enough that I don't see a reason to question it.  Honestly, I don't care who Jesus actually was.  He's like a speck of dirt somewhere in a mountain of myths.

It's just a nice story, like the Lord of the Rings, you don't need to think it actually happened.  So I say Jesus was a wise man, and a novel revolutionary. As for evidence, I have nothing concrete, I just picked between the lines of the bible to get a more secular story, and that's what I came up with.  I don't mean to assert my version of the history of Jesus as fact or anything. It just seems true to me.

~

That he existed, on the other hand, seems to be the historical consensus. If you don't mind Wikipedia as a source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus this is pretty heavily cited, scroll through if you're bored enough to do so.  There are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

Critics of Jesus would write and call him a liar, intrigued citizens heard of his actions and wrote of him as a person, and his believers and followers of Paul write about him like he was the son of god.  But they all write of a man who was a champion among the Jews.  Basically, history of this time is too full of Jesus for him to have just been a rumor or a myth.  Someone was the center of all this attention.  In my view, there must have been an actual man who made a significant ripple in history for all of these records to just pop up about him at this time.

In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

So what the hell do I know? Maybe he was fake, but I think the historical documents are more reliable than the alternative that it was all a conspiracy.  It all happened too quickly after his death to be a false history, like Adam and Eve.  Something happened at the turn of the millennium that got people writing about Jesus.  To me, that means there was probably a man out doing good things and spreading wisdom.  If not, well, there are worse lies people could believe in. Jesus is just all right with me.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed.  It's ignorant to say he didn't.

Ignorant of what exactly?

The nonmagical Jesus may have existed, but to say it is certain he did, I don't believe it. "His" history is so very clouded.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Again, these are all assertions I've heard before.  Assertions honestly don't interest me very much.  Evidence interests me.  From my standpoint you are sharing your belief regarding a historical Jesus, but you seem to have mistaken your own belief for being a fact.  Facts have evidence that back them up.  So let's see that evidence.

Let me start off by saying, my interpretation of things is nothing more than a story.  It's what I see when I shed away all the magic tricks in the bible, but it's doubtful that my idea of Jesus can account for anything that actually happened.  I just like to think about it that way, and it seems plausible enough that I don't see a reason to question it.  Honestly, I don't care who Jesus actually was.  He's like a speck of dirt somewhere in a mountain of myths.

It's just a nice story, like the Lord of the Rings, you don't need to think it actually happened.  So I say Jesus was a wise man, and a novel revolutionary. As for evidence, I have nothing concrete, I just picked between the lines of the bible to get a more secular story, and that's what I came up with.  I don't mean to assert my version of the history of Jesus as fact or anything. It just seems true to me.

~

That he existed, on the other hand, seems to be the historical consensus. If you don't mind Wikipedia as a source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus this is pretty heavily cited, scroll through if you're bored enough to do so.  There are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

Critics of Jesus would write and call him a liar, intrigued citizens heard of his actions and wrote of him as a person, and his believers and followers of Paul write about him like he was the son of god.  But they all write of a man who was a champion among the Jews.  Basically, history of this time is too full of Jesus for him to have just been a rumor or a myth.  Someone was the center of all this attention.  In my view, there must have been an actual man who made a significant ripple in history for all of these records to just pop up about him at this time.

In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

So what the hell do I know? Maybe he was fake, but I think the historical documents are more reliable than the alternative that it was all a conspiracy.  It all happened too quickly after his death to be a false history, like Adam and Eve.  Something happened at the turn of the millennium that got people writing about Jesus.  To me, that means there was probably a man out doing good things and spreading wisdom.  If not, well, there are worse lies people could believe in. Jesus is just all right with me.

There was a very similar thread on this a quite a few months ago where I addressed this same issue. Your Wikipedia link was clearly written by someone who wants to establish Jesus as historical. Unfortunately every extra-biblical source mentioned can be refuted or disputed. The source that interests me the most is Mara Bar-Serpapion, who makes a very interesting comparison. He essentially equates Jesus, Pythagoras, and Socrates. This is interesting because they all have similar historical treatments. In other words he is saying, if we consider Pythagoras and Socrates as historical, then why would we not consider Jesus historical as well. Socrates has no evidence of his existence but unlike Jesus, we have first hand accounts from his students Xenophon and Plato. He is also referenced by his contemporary Aristophanes, the play write. He is also spoken of by Plato's famous disciple Aristotle. So we have multiple, strong, first hand accounts that he lived. For Pythagoras we at least have is contributions to philosophy and mathematics. These are the reasons he is considered historical. Because he was credited with his known works and they have survived. No one else claims that his work was theirs, so there is no one else to attribute these contributions to. Jesus on the other hand, has no undisputed, firsthand or secondhand accounts of his life. No contemporaries to cooperate his deeds. He has no personal writings or works of carpentry. There is no evidence that Jesus was historical and only a few passing references to him through history. These references can be attributed to interpolations or people who are so far removed from his "life" that they have to be questioned critically.

All sources from Rome can be discounted because they are clearly using the gospels as their sources. The reason being, is because of their use of the word Christus. I address why this can be discounted below. The other name typically used to reference Jesus is Christos. This simply means "the anointed one" and is not a term that is exclusive to Jesus. There have been many "anointed ones" through ancient history. Being anointed could me being pious or very religious. It could be a reference to a person's spirituality. There is no reason to believe it is only a reference to Jesus.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"The historicity of Jesus seems to be a pretty touchy subject so I will be as diplomatic about this as possible. To be brief, there is no reliable secular source that supports the existence of Jesus. It is likely that the man was a total concoction of early Christians in the same vein as Hercules. A hero myth figure used to advance religious ideas, that would have mass appeal to the largely pagan and Jewish beliefs of the time. The religion truly has many borrowed ingredients from many other systems of belief.

Usually when people point to extra biblical text to support the claim that Jesus was real they cite Josephus and Tacitus. I will address the one I feel more strongly makes a case for a secular source about Jesus; Tacitus. The particular passage that is typically quoted is from Tacitus’ The Annals, written around 109 CE. The Annals was Tacitus’ last work. It was intended to be a comprehensive history of the four Roman emperors that followed Augustus. Much of this work was lost, however, and what remains is the majority of Tiberius and Nero’s reign.

QuoteConsequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Annals

There is little doubt that Tacitus is referring to Jesus in this passage but this brings us to the most glaring issue with his reference. Jesus is believed to have died between 30 and 35 CE. Rome devastated Jerusalem at around 70 CE. Understanding that Tacitus wrote The Annals in 109 CE, we are left with 75 year gap between the time he authored his works and Jesus’ supposed death. We are also left with a 40 year gap between the authorship of The Annals and the time that Rome sieged Jerusalem.  Time is a key factor in determining the credibility of a source and there is no evidence that Tacitus was using a firsthand source at all. If he was writing 5, 10, or even 20 years after the fact we could be less critical but 75 years after the event is too much time to consider Tacitus a reliable secular source.

There is no argument that people lived much shorter lives and the vast majority of people were also illiterate. For ignorant people, who consider a 30 year old woman elderly, it is not hard to see the issues cropping up for the credibility of Tacitus’ excerpt about “Christus”. He is far from the range of any credible first had accounts. That fact alone creates a huge discrepancy in just how accurate Tacitus could possibly be. For those that would argue that the Romans destroyed all of the firsthand accounts of Jesus during the 70 CE siege, not only is that totally ridiculous (Romans kept the best records in antiquity, including their embarrassing campaign against Hannibal), it would go against every Roman historical tradition before and after this event.

Another glaring flaw in Tacitus’ account of Christian persecution is how he refers to Jesus. There is no doubt that he is referring to Jesus when he says “Christus”. The question is why did he use that term? Christus would not have been used in any Hebrew writing because it was a Latin word. If there were any firsthand accounts of Jesus life being written by those who witnessed him personally, it is more likely that this would have been translated from Hebrew or Greek, rather than Latin. Yeshu or Yeshua are the common Hebrew words used to refer to Jesus. Given the time The Annals were being written, it is strange that Tacitus did not use the Hebrew word or at the very least the Greek word for Jesus; Christos (the anointed one).

This may all seem trivial but it is very important to note that aside from a mistranslation, there is little other reason that Tacitus would have used the word Christus, instead of Christos or Yeshua. The reason for this mistake is likely because Tacitus was not using any first hand sources but possibly citing from the then widely circulated Gospels themselves. It is possible Tacitus was using some of the Vetus Latina (Old Latin Bible) or that he simply misread a Greek translation or that his particular translation had a textual mistake (which was very common). All of these scenarios are more likely than the word Christus being purposely used as a reference to Jesus in, what should have been, Greek or Hebrew text.

Another embarrassing issue with arguing for a historical Jesus is the fact that not one of Jesus’ contemporaries writes a single word of his existence. It is only after nearly 4 decades have passed that anyone mentions him at all. That is very strange considering there were a formidable amount of historians and scholars that lived around the time of his life and death.  This laundry list includes Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, and most notably Philo of Alexadria.

Philo deserves a special nod because not only did he live during the entire supposed lifetime of Jesus (between 20 BCE to 50 CE), he was most active during the time when Jesus supposedly died, he only lived a few hundred miles away from Jerusalem, and he wrote extensively about the persecution of Jews by Pontius Pilate! Nearly all of Philo’s work is preserved and yet he seems to never have heard of the King of the Jews, Jesus Christ! How strange for someone who was clearly invested in the plight of Jews and had every available opportunity to hear anything at all about Jesus and yet he never mentions then name. Surely Philo would have heard of a man who claimed to be the son of God, who challenged the very foundation of the Jewish practice in Jerusalem, and who was sentenced to die by a well known Roman leader Philo followed closely. Philo got everything else but somehow missed all of that.

I know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but this is just ridiculous. Some may dispute all of these coincidences but as a skeptic I cannot do that. There are simply too many more logical explanations, other than everyone who could have attested to Jesus caught amnesia or all of their records were destroyed. I would have no problem rejecting a real Jesus as the son of God but in this case Jesus is just as paper-thin as all the other heavily praised deities of history. Jesus was just lucky enough to be popular when movable type was invented, so his myth could be spread far and wide for pennies on the dollar.

Check out some of the links below for my sources and I have to give big props to R.G. Price, who has the most comprehensive argument against a historical Christ I have ever seen. If you do nothing else, check out his website radicalrevolution.net. Links below.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#8 (http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#8) (if you are even fleetingly interested in the subject you need to check out this site. It is an amazing resource and he cites everything for us to use. This is the major source for my article. Props to R.G. Price again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo)
http://dictionary.babylon.com/christus/ (http://dictionary.babylon.com/christus/)
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/how- ... jesus.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/how-does-the-title-christos-relate-to-jesus.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina)

It is quaint and easy to just say that he was real. No one wants to admit that they were duped but the history does not add up. I cannot say with certainty that there was no Jesus but if we went just by the evidence and I knew nothing about the influence of Christian faith, I would be inclined to dismiss Jesus as historical.

Quote from: "KebertX"As for evidence, I have nothing concrete.

Its respectable that you would admit this, but...

Quote from: "KebertX"That he existed, on the other hand, seems to be the historical consensus. If you don't mind Wikipedia as a source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus this is pretty heavily cited, scroll through if you're bored enough to do so.  There are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

...this is not relevant.  If people began writing about a giant floating castle just a few decades after it was said to have disappeared, would that honestly compel you to believe that a giant floating castle actually existed?  Just because they're talking about a man and men existed during that time, that doesn't make the Jesus myth any more viable than the giant floating castle myth in my opinion.

Quote from: "KebertX"Critics of Jesus would write and call him a liar, intrigued citizens heard of his actions and wrote of him as a person, and his believers and followers of Paul write about him like he was the son of god.  But they all write of a man who was a champion among the Jews.  Basically, history of this time is too full of Jesus for him to have just been a rumor or a myth.  Someone was the center of all this attention.  In my view, there must have been an actual man who made a significant ripple in history for all of these records to just pop up about him at this time.

I feel like you might be forgetting that these kinds of accounts are literally - for the lifespans of that time - generations after the death of the mythological Jesus.  Assuming anything about them is factually correct makes little sense to me.

Quote from: "KebertX"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

Mmm...seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me, though.  It seems like you're saying either he was a miraculous, intelligent man that existed and moved people enough to become a legend and then a god, or there was a huge conspiracy to create this figure and make him into a god for some secondary purpose.  From why I understand of the nature of human mythology and the evidence we have regarding Jesus, neither of those explanations make much sense.

Quote from: "KebertX"So what the hell do I know? Maybe he was fake, but I think the historical documents are more reliable than the alternative that it was all a conspiracy.  It all happened too quickly after his death to be a false history, like Adam and Eve.  Something happened at the turn of the millennium that got people writing about Jesus.  To me, that means there was probably a man out doing good things and spreading wisdom.  If not, well, there are worse lies people could believe in. Jesus is just all right with me.

Well, glad you're into it, but I just feel I should point out that what you're saying here is a pretty far cry from your initial comment to which I responded -

Quote from: "KebertX"Jesus definitely existed. It's ignorant to say he didn't.

While I would agree that saying with certainty that some kind of Jesus guy never existed is an assumption, I feel it's no more ignorant than stating absolutely that some Jesus kind of guy did exist.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "KebertX"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

Good point.  I have honestly learned a ton about the historicity of Jesus just today.  Maybe he was real, maybe he wasn't, It's not as concrete as I thought it was 12 hours ago.  It could go either way, and honestly, I don't care.  I still like the story. To me, it's just like all the myths about Krishna, The Buddha, Muhammad, and all these other "historical" religious figures.  Good stories, moral lessons, a lot of magic and untrue hocus-pocus, but probably have some grain of truth in them.

I don't know if he was real, but as it doesn't really matter, so I'd just as easily believe that there was actually a really good guy about 2,000 years ago. I also think Paul really fucked up everything he stood for by creating Christianity.  He did to Jesus' cause what Stalin did to Lenin's: After his death he mutilated it out of all it's meaning so that he could use it as a tool control people and gain power.

QuoteThere are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

KebertX, this is simply not true. You shouldn't put forth untruths like this and offer no backup at all. I can easily dispute anything related to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

Not without an assist from the Goths.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

I'm misquoted here as having said that inner bit.  That was KebertX, not me.  So, just for clarification -

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "KebertX"In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteThere are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

KebertX, this is simply not true. You shouldn't put forth untruths like this and offer no backup at all. I can easily dispute anything related to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny.

I'm no historian, but it stands to reason that the further back in time you go, the less specific facts become. We're trying to nail specific details to a guy who may or may not have even existed.  I don't see why we should just throw out any details that may have been influenced by a pro-Christian agenda.  If you refuse to acknowledge what documents there are to shed some light on the Jesus story, then of course you'd come to the conclusion that he didn't exist.

But I'm listening, why aren't any of those records admissible? I've been wrong throughout this thread, so I'm just here to learn at this point.

Hi KebertX,

Here is why you can't count Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny. I posted here in this thread already about Jopeshus and Tacitus so I will include those comments here too:

QuoteJOSEPHUS: Josephus wrote two very important histories; "History of the Jewish War" (70’s CE) and "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). The work that you are referring to is the "Antiquities of the Jews". Right now I am reading his other work, "History of the Jewish War". Even though this book was written during the 70s CE, do you know how many times he mentions Christianity? ZERO. That's because Christianity did not develop until AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

Here is the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus writing “Antiquities of the Jews”:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Not a single writer before the 4th century â€" not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â€" in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to these words.

All manuscripts before Eusebius (263-339 CE) do not have the passage in question. Also, no form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the works of any writer until after Eusebius.

There is nothing said by Josephus about Jesus or Christianity in his “Jewish War”(70s CE). In the section on Pilate in the earlier "Jewish War" he outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). In the "Antiquities", these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In "Jewish War", no mention of Jesus or Christianity is included. Also, throughout the "Antiquities of the Jews" there is not one mention of Christianity or Jesus besides this one small interpolation. The work of Josephus is voluminous and exhaustive. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure leaders, yet he says absolutely nothing about Christianity or Jesus.

The statement “he was the Christ” is very out of place in its present position and disturbs the flow of thought. Also, Josephus being a devout Jew would NEVER claim Jesus as the Christ. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, Josephus has nothing but bad things to say. He condemns the whole movement of rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple. And yet the Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus?

Eubesius’s texts always sound like Eubesius. The phrases “maker of many miracles”, “tribe of Christians”, and “until this day” are found throughout the writings of Eusebius. Eusebius used the same trope or habit that a writer has that is relatively unique and acts as a fingerprint in identifying that writer’s work. The most used trope of Eusebius was the phrase “even to this present day” or “to the present time”. Eusebius liked to use this phrase a lot, especially when referring to proof of the truth not only being seen in the past but still being able to be seen in his present time. He used this same trope even when quoting other writers. Also, the term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS (maker of miraculous works) is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus. The Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in his "Demonstratio" very closely.

TACITUS: The work you are referring to is his "Annals" written around 109 CE. Here is the passage:

Tacitus, Annals, 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative and it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. Tacitus does not mention Christians ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the Annals nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage.

The first copy of the manuscript was dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. This is the Beneventan rustic capitals manuscript that made it’s way to the Monte Cassino where another copy was made around 1038-1055 CE. As the first copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. It is even admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity.

The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.This story, in nearly the same words, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century CE and the same type of slander against Nero is to be found in the writings of Eusebius.Tacitus was writing long before the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. Nero blaming the Christians comes from these apocryphal writings Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul proving that these lines MUST have been interpolated into the Annals.

In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second. This manuscript has been examined and it was found that there are signs of an 'e' being erased. It was discovered that under ultraviolet light that the 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρησÏ,,ÏŒÏ, (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.

The wrong title is used for Pontius Pilate of procurator. The term prefect should have been used. Also, Pilate is mentioned here over 25 years after his rule with no mention of a prior reference to him in another part of the Annals. Tacitus was writing the Annals of accounts year by year, hence the name. He surely would have referred the reader back to an earlier book where he mentions Pilate, especially after being 25 years since he was in office.

Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Many writers called Judaism a superstition. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition. Chrestus (the actual word used by Tacitus), means "the good", a complementary title for just about anyone. Chrestos was a term used in mystic religions, to denote a perfected being. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition.

Now, I will address Pliny and Suetonius.

First, you have to understand the words "chrestus", "chrestos" and "christos" and how they were used BEFORE Christianity. The classical Greek words Chrestos and Christos, predate the New Testament by centuries.  The word "Chrestus," meaning "good" or "useful," was a title frequently held by commoners, priests, and gods alike prior to the Christian era. Followers of any deity could be called "Chrestus" or "Chrestos". They were not "Christians" but "Chrestians". In early antiquity and within the mystery religions, the term "Chrestos" had a deeper meaning than simply a good man.  It referred to a disciple of the religion, someone who was actively seeking the Truth.  Philo of Alexandria speaks of ‘Theochrestos’, which means ‘God-declared’ or one who is declared by God.  He also refers to the ‘Logia Theochresta’, meaning “sayings delivered by God”.  The word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos. It is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, were used indifferently by the Christian authors of the first two centuries to show "christos" the "annointed one". In Greek, 'e' and 'i' were similarly pronounced and often confused. So "chrestos" or chrestus" were words used to describe followers of a god BEFORE Jesus. These words were used long before Christianity. Osiris, amongst others, was called Chrestos. Mithras too, was called Chrestos. Chrestus or Chrestos were pagan terms used to refer to various pre-Christian deities.

Hadrian (76-138 CE) referred to the followers of the god Serapis as chrestos or christians. A letter inserted in the Augustan History, ascribed to the Emperor Hadrian, refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis, suggesting a great confusion of the cults and practices:

Hadrian said: “The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.”

Serapis was an invented god. He was a composite of several Egyptian and Hellenistic deities who was introduced to the world at the beginning of the Ptolemaic (Greek) Period in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy I, though his legacy lasted well into the Roman period. Thus, he was meant to form a bridge between the Greek and Egyptian religion in a new age in which their respective gods were bought face to face with each other, so that both Egyptians and Greeks could find union in a specific supreme entity. The god's name is a fusion of Osiris and the bull Apis.The chief center of the worship of Serapis in Ptolemaic times was Alexandria at the great Serapeum, which was considered a wonder and a site of pilgrimage throughout the Mediterranean world, until it was destroyed by order of Emperor Theodosius in 389 CE.

Now, a little before Hadrian, around 110-112 CE, there was a letter from the magistrate Pliny the Younger to his emperor Trajan, asking for procedures in dealing with the large number of Christians who were being brought before him daily. The worship of Serapis was imported into Egypt from Pontus, a province bordering on Bithynia. Pliny the Younger was stationed in Bithynia when he wrote this letter to Trajan. The Christians mentioned by Pliny the Younger were worshippers of Serapis not a man called Jesus from Nazareth. The value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. Also, the actual text used today about this letter comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century so the chrestos or chrestus used by Pliny was altered to christians just like the "e" was changed to an "i" in the Tacitus interpolation.

Now, for Suetonius. The only comment from him comes from his "Lives, Nero, 16" where it says: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

I have read the "Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius and let me assure you, he was referring to Jews and not Christians. Suetonius never mentions Christians in the entire 12 Caesars other than this line. Suetonius DOES mention Jews four times before and four times AFTER this line, showing that the original line referred to the Jews and not Christians. Suetonius was writing long before the apocryphal writings of Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Peter and Paul were written proving that the lines about punishment being inflicted upon the Christians must have been an interpolation after the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. The words “mischievous superstition” is also used in the "Annals" (Tacitus) interpolation and sounds exactly like something Eusebius would say. The word, "superstition" was used by others when referring to Judaism. Tactitus used this word several times when referring to Jews.

Regarding Tacitus 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.

QuoteThe passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some scholars have argued that it may not be authentic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ)

It is always helpful for you to provide a link to where you are getting your information from and if it is agreed to by a majority of the peers that can review it.

One can try to present a case for something but if it is a viewpoint only held by a minority of the authorities in that area of expertise then you can see the credibility problem.

I will look into the other issues you are presenting but I have to say that regarding Tacitus you are not in alinement with the majority view of the proper authorities on this matter.

Quote from: "freeservant"Regarding Tacitus 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.

QuoteThe passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some scholars have argued that it may not be authentic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ)

It is always helpful for you to provide a link to where you are getting your information from and if it is agreed to by a majority of the peers that can review it.

One can try to present a case for something but if it is a viewpoint only held by a minority of the authorities in that area of expertise then you can see the credibility problem.

I will look into the other issues you are presenting but I have to say that regarding Tacitus you are not in alinement with the majority view of the proper authorities on this matter.

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

Quote from: "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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html)

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.  

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

"Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

Quote from: "Davin""Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.  You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Davin""Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

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?

Quote from: "Davin"There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?[/quote]You imply that authority on a subject is meaningless.  This is patently false.

Quote

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

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?

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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?

You imply that authority on a subject is meaningless.  This is patently false.

No, I imply that one can't trust someone just because they're an authority, this is patently true.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

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?

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.

I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

Quote from: "Davin"I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

Then you've a lot of schooling ahead of you.  This is aside from the fact that your argument is a clever strawman.

QuoteI 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.

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

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Davin"I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

Then you've a lot of schooling ahead of you.  This is aside from the fact that your argument is a clever strawman.

The only schooling I need to do is that which is important for me to accept as true, if an authority says something is the way it is and I don't know how that works, there is no need for me to either accept or deny it. But if it's important that I accept it as true, then It's my responsibility to understand the things I accept as true.

I don't see how making sure an authority has the ability explain the concepts they claim to understand is a straw man.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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?

Quote from: "Davin"[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.

QuoteI 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?

QuotePlease 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?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

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.

meh.  I'm done anyway.

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"They are facts. They are true. They make sense.

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

Quote from: "lundberg500"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.

QuoteQuestion: 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...

QuoteQuestion: 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 (http://is.gd/fO0gQ)

Quote from: "from the website"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/ (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.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.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.

Quote from: "tymygy"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

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:

Quotehow 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?

QuoteThere 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  

Quote from: "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?

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:

Quote from: "lundberg500"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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"You are losing serious credibility with me with comments like this:

Quotehow 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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"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?

QuoteThere 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.

Quote from: "lundberg500"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 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.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.

Quote from: "freeservant"and...

QuoteQuestion: 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 (http://is.gd/fO0gQ)

Quote from: "from the website"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/ (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?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

QuoteNot 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.

QuoteAt 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.

Christians keep touting this "seeking truth" idea.  How the hell is it seeking truth when you completely disregard logic and reason?  I don't get how seemingly intelligent and educated people just accept these ideas on faith.  When asked...they just quote the bible as if it were a scientific reference.

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

It's not much of a story, really.

So...now what?

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

It's not much of a story, really.

So...now what?

If he lived like every other Jew...he definitely would have had a wife and kids...GOD FORBID!

QuoteI'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

Quote from: "lundberg500"You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only.

Not necessarily.  There are certainly assumptions involved in any definitive claim about Jesus' existence, but it's perfectly plausible that the messiah myth might have a number of elements related to an actual cult leader with some flair thrown in to give the god claims some weight.

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteI'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

It doesn't make any difference, that's my point. I''m stipulating that, regardless of whatever the history books or the gospels say, there was an actual person who lived in that time who went by the name of Jesus (not an uncommon name), and that this Jesus was executed by the Romans.

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteI'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

It doesn't make any difference, that's my point. I''m stipulating that, regardless of whatever the history books or the gospels say, there was an actual person who lived in that time who went by the name of Jesus (not an uncommon name), and that this Jesus was executed by the Romans.

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

I'm pretty sure his point is that there is no big deal in conceding the point for the sake of argument; all the other non sequiturs you trotted out will be dealt with as the claim is made.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

I'm pretty sure his point is that there is no big deal in conceding the point for the sake of argument; all the other non sequiturs you trotted out will be dealt with as the claim is made.

My question for Freeservant is very simple. How do we get from a real man named Jesus to the Jesus described in the gospels?

I wouldn't even give him that much. There is no evidence that Jesus lived at all. But you're right. Even with that point being conceded there is still no way to justify the Jesus of the New Testament. I guess my point is that, while the majority of Americans take it for granted that Jesus at least existed, a believer has to admit, at any level of this argument, that they are operating out of faith based assumptions and not fact. I think the fact that there is no evidence allows for the possibility, in the same way that a total lack of evidence for God can be used to justify the belief (since we can't prove God does not exist).

Quote from: "i_am_i"My question for Freeservant is very simple. How do we get from a real man named Jesus to the Jesus described in the gospels?

Indeed, which is why I labeled the quoted projections non sequiturs; they don't follow from some guy named Jesus having lived and died.

It's also why I don't mind agnosticism on this question; divine provenance is not shown by crucifixion, else the Romans produced many thousands of gods.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Personally, I've never come across any evidence that he did, but like I said - I haven't really studied the subject.

That;s the whole point. There is no subject to study...*grinnin*


These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years after:

 Apollonius
 Appian
 Arrian
 Aulus Gellius
 Columella
 Damis
 Dio Chrysostom
 Dion Pruseus
 Epictetus
 Favorinus
 Florus Lucius
 Hermogones
Josephus
Justus of Tiberius
Juvenal
Lucanus
Lucian                
Lysias                
Martial                
Paterculus
Pausanias
Persius
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philo-Judaeus
Phlegon
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Plutarch
Pompon Mela
Ptolemy
Quintilian
Quintius Curtius
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ.

Mr Teatime has had some thoughts on Jesus.
He doesn't work cheap.
But if you want the job done, he's your man.

He existed. We all know he wasn't God.

I think this is a pretty good article on whether Jesus existed or not:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)