Excellent advice.
Yet you seem to think it doesn't apply to you, as shown by your subsequent list of "evidence".
How do you know that it was Jesus who died on the cross?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Yet you seem to think it doesn't apply to you, as shown by your subsequent list of "evidence".
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There is not a single book of the bible that was written as late as 100 years after Jesus' death, not even according to the latest skeptic estimates. That being said, even late sources may be reliable historical sources. And there is better evidence for Jesus than anything or anyone else in the ancient world.
Why consider the Bible reliable?
Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.
1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.
3. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).
4. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
-Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.
4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.
5. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.
6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
-- The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.
Why consider the Bible reliable?
Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.
1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.
3. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).
4. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
-Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.
4. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.
5. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.
6. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
-- The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.
Mary Magdalene. She did it . She made up resurrection . She was the eye witness to it . The resurrection . So go we believe a gullible woman by her eye witness account . Remember gullible women make up all kinds of things about there abusive husbands . When they want to get back with em that is . They will sneak em into there safe houses and all kinds of crazy things just cause they tell them pretty little stories about how they never going to be like that again . So Jesus went around piping off " I 'ma gonna rise on the 3rd day. Well he was killed " Now what " Mary checks the grave . Now what , Could it be ass covering time by the abused wife ? Think now !!??!!?? Who was the witness to the resurrection ? Is a woman's testimony reliable? Back when woman was considered below a slave ? Would there be an incentive for a woman to exaggerate a story like this ? Consider Jesus was a bastard son . How did they treat bastard sons back in the day ? How did they treat Women back in the day ? You get what I am saying ? What was the Mary/Jesus incentive to make up a divine event . I would say it is a sight more than a Jesus looking stain in a bed sheet or an Oreo cookie defect that looks like Jesus for sale by someone on the internet . Mary she'l bake you cookies then she'l burn your town . Jesus < Mary's Studge < Frankenstein's Monster . Like Me . I am Mary's guitar studge , It is all about Mary .
O.K. I heard more Blue / Gold ideology today . It is a Documentary called "Blue Gold" I guess it is about fresh water supplies being the new world currency in the future . It is the " Running out of Water alarmists that coined the phrase . Is it Me Dyw? There is a weird thing about the blue bull and golden horns , I'm telling you . Strange indeed . Blue Gold now that was funny . I also noticed something to day ( Levites and Leviathan, Look how similar that is . Levites are musicians you know . Story tellers is what comes to my mind.
O.K. I heard more Blue / Gold ideology today . It is a Documentary called "Blue Gold" I guess it is about fresh water supplies being the new world currency in the future . It is the " Running out of Water alarmists that coined the phrase . Is it Me Dyw? There is a weird thing about the blue bull and golden horns , I'm telling you . Strange indeed . Blue Gold now that was funny . I also noticed something to day ( Levites and Leviathan, Look how similar that is . Levites are musicians you know . Story tellers is what comes to my mind.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Wife of the Christ, this is no simpleton of Woman.
Yea?
Tell me more.
Well she did love him. And he was thrown in a cave to rot.. so why not?
Marry?
Wife of the Christ, fuck the church. "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch (king) David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne." King David, ancestor of Jesus through Saint Josheph, and Mother Mary a prophet of God given oath that his descendant would sit on his "throne." A crucifix is not a throne, Jesus gave seed.
Propoganda
Sure. But Marry was a disciple. Son of God in Heaven, born to Joseph and Marry.
You never know.. but people are just not that stupid. Close, but not quite.
The great retardation has been bestowed upon me. So we go from useless woman to master of civilization?
I'd buy into that.
Gday,
In fact - none of that is contemporary, and most of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.
Certainly not good evidence for Jesus.
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
The other tiny passage in Josephus aparrently refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
So,
this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates. It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
this was several generations later,
Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories: e.g.
* one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.
* another has Jesus stoned to death in Lydda
* another that Jesus had 5 disciples (Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah)
Hardly historical evidence, it's totally different to Christian beliefs.
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus, the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
In short,
there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.
Kapyong
In fact - none of that is contemporary, and most of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.
Certainly not good evidence for Jesus.
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
The other tiny passage in Josephus aparrently refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
So,
this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates. It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
this was several generations later,
Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories: e.g.
* one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.
* another has Jesus stoned to death in Lydda
* another that Jesus had 5 disciples (Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah)
Hardly historical evidence, it's totally different to Christian beliefs.
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus, the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
In short,
there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.
Kapyong
Gday,
Take them with a grain of salt?
So you KNOW they are suspect, but you cite them anyway?
The Shroud of Turin has been scientifically proven a later forgery.
Nazareth site?
What about it?
There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
True Cross?
You're kidding?
There is no historical evidence kind that the crucifixion occured. Just STORIES by believers.
Paul did NOT witness a historical Jesus.
He had a VISION - so what?
People have visions of Jesus, and Krishna, even Xenu, to this day - so what?
Excuses for believers, that's all.
People die for religions all the time - so what?
No martyr ever met Jesus - it proves nothing.
What on earth is the "Criterion of Crucifixion"?
There is no historical evidence for the crucifixion.
Just STORIES by believers.
Yes you do - at least, I do, people who CHECK the facts do.
I say Buddha did not exist.
Buddha is almost certainly a myth too.
I say Confucius did not exist.
Confucius is almost certainly a myth too.
Even Mohamed - there ARE minority arguments he didn't exist either.
Not definite at all.
There is no good evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
Just STORIES by believers long after the alleged events.
Kapyong
Take them with a grain of salt?
So you KNOW they are suspect, but you cite them anyway?
The Shroud of Turin has been scientifically proven a later forgery.
Nazareth site?
What about it?
There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
True Cross?
You're kidding?
There is no historical evidence kind that the crucifixion occured. Just STORIES by believers.
Paul did NOT witness a historical Jesus.
He had a VISION - so what?
People have visions of Jesus, and Krishna, even Xenu, to this day - so what?
Excuses for believers, that's all.
People die for religions all the time - so what?
No martyr ever met Jesus - it proves nothing.
What on earth is the "Criterion of Crucifixion"?
There is no historical evidence for the crucifixion.
Just STORIES by believers.
Yes you do - at least, I do, people who CHECK the facts do.
I say Buddha did not exist.
Buddha is almost certainly a myth too.
I say Confucius did not exist.
Confucius is almost certainly a myth too.
Even Mohamed - there ARE minority arguments he didn't exist either.
Not definite at all.
There is no good evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
Just STORIES by believers long after the alleged events.
Kapyong
Gday,
Wrong.
Many scholars date 2 Peter to as late as 150CE.
Completely false.
But endlessly repeated by believers who've never checked.
There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, but we have vast amounts of hard contemporary historical evidence for many people.
This claim is simply wrong, and should stop saying it if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Nonsense.
No-one demands "perfection".
This is simply a standard Christian excuse avoid admitting the evidence for Jesus is so bad.
Nonsense.
The Gospels did not become known to the Christian community until a CENTURY or so after the alleged time of Jesus.
Have a look at how LATE the knowledge of the Gospels is :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sahota/qdj/FOC/Table.html
Myths can form in DAYS.
Next M.O.M will tell us that 40-60 years is too short for myths to form!
Which is just totally wrong.
As if it's 100% "reliable" or 100% useless.
Believers always see things in black and white.
In fact Tacitus is NOT 100% reliable at all.
Wrong again.
The first biographies of Alexander were written during his life by people who lived with him - later writings were based on those, less than 400 years. This is another false claim repeatedly raised by believers.
We have hard contempary evidence for Alexandxer - the Esagila diary, coins, Persepolis.
Nonsense.
Consider how that training FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - we have multiple versions of this simple prayer, allegedly directly taught by Jesus HIMSELF!
Faithful believers believe all sorts of faithful beliefs.
Scholars however, date the Gospels much later than that.
Acts is totally unknown to Christians until late 2nd century !
Scholars now consider Acts as late and more myth than history.
I KNEW it!
This is completely wrong.
Legends can, and do, arise is DAYS!
Such as Augustus or Lubavitch.
How can a person actually believe that a legend cannot form in 40-60 years when we have seen it happen in DAYS!
Seriously M.O.M, how can you pretend to believe this?
Anyway - if Jesus did NOT exist, then it WASN'T 40-60 years at all! The Jesus myth could have been forming for decades. This argument for Jesus existence depends on Jesus existing in the first place !
He is wrong. There is no evidence of any historical core in the first place! Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus. You are simply assuming there WAS a Jesus, and then claiming the stories about him are evidence he existed - it's a perfect circle.
There is no historical evidence for this at all.
Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
People have VISIONS of Jesus, or Krishna, or Xenu, or faeries, or ghosts - to this day!
So what?
Are you really claiming VISIONS of a spiritual being are historical evidence?
Seriously?
There is no historical evidence of any disciples of Jesus. Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
Your entire argument boils down to believing the Gospels are true.
But there is no external evidence for any of it.
When pressed for historical evidence for Jesus, all we get is :
* STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
* claims that the STORIES are good evidence
* some places and names of real people found in the Gospels
But actual historical and/or contemporary evidence for Jesus and the Gospel events?
Zero.
This faithful belief is faithfully believed by many faithful believers.
But scholars agree it is the LEAST likely explanation.
Kapyong
Wrong.
Many scholars date 2 Peter to as late as 150CE.
Completely false.
But endlessly repeated by believers who've never checked.
There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, but we have vast amounts of hard contemporary historical evidence for many people.
This claim is simply wrong, and should stop saying it if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Nonsense.
No-one demands "perfection".
This is simply a standard Christian excuse avoid admitting the evidence for Jesus is so bad.
Nonsense.
The Gospels did not become known to the Christian community until a CENTURY or so after the alleged time of Jesus.
Have a look at how LATE the knowledge of the Gospels is :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sahota/qdj/FOC/Table.html
Myths can form in DAYS.
Next M.O.M will tell us that 40-60 years is too short for myths to form!
Which is just totally wrong.
As if it's 100% "reliable" or 100% useless.
Believers always see things in black and white.
In fact Tacitus is NOT 100% reliable at all.
Wrong again.
The first biographies of Alexander were written during his life by people who lived with him - later writings were based on those, less than 400 years. This is another false claim repeatedly raised by believers.
We have hard contempary evidence for Alexandxer - the Esagila diary, coins, Persepolis.
Nonsense.
Consider how that training FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - we have multiple versions of this simple prayer, allegedly directly taught by Jesus HIMSELF!
Faithful believers believe all sorts of faithful beliefs.
Scholars however, date the Gospels much later than that.
Acts is totally unknown to Christians until late 2nd century !
Scholars now consider Acts as late and more myth than history.
I KNEW it!
This is completely wrong.
Legends can, and do, arise is DAYS!
Such as Augustus or Lubavitch.
How can a person actually believe that a legend cannot form in 40-60 years when we have seen it happen in DAYS!
Seriously M.O.M, how can you pretend to believe this?
Anyway - if Jesus did NOT exist, then it WASN'T 40-60 years at all! The Jesus myth could have been forming for decades. This argument for Jesus existence depends on Jesus existing in the first place !
He is wrong. There is no evidence of any historical core in the first place! Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus. You are simply assuming there WAS a Jesus, and then claiming the stories about him are evidence he existed - it's a perfect circle.
There is NO good evidence. Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
Rubbish.
There is no historical evidence for this at all.
Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
VISIONS ?!
People have VISIONS of Jesus, or Krishna, or Xenu, or faeries, or ghosts - to this day!
So what?
Are you really claiming VISIONS of a spiritual being are historical evidence?
Seriously?
There is no historical evidence of any disciples of Jesus. Just STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
Your entire argument boils down to believing the Gospels are true.
But there is no external evidence for any of it.
When pressed for historical evidence for Jesus, all we get is :
* STORIES from long after the alleged events by people who never met Jesus.
* claims that the STORIES are good evidence
* some places and names of real people found in the Gospels
But actual historical and/or contemporary evidence for Jesus and the Gospel events?
Zero.
This faithful belief is faithfully believed by many faithful believers.
But scholars agree it is the LEAST likely explanation.
Kapyong
Gday,
That's what the STORIES say.
But why should we believe them?
We have no writings from Mary or John the apostle.
There is no historical evidence for these events at all.
The issue is whether these stories are history - can you show any historical evidence for any of it?
APART from STORIES from unknown persons who never met Jesus?
None of the NT books were written by anyone who met Jesus - that's the form consensus of modern NT scholars. But believers simply don't know, or refuse to accept it.
In all of the NT writings - there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have personallly met a Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)
I'll make a post about that I think.
Kapyong
That's what the STORIES say.
But why should we believe them?
We have no writings from Mary or John the apostle.
There is no historical evidence for these events at all.
The issue is whether these stories are history - can you show any historical evidence for any of it?
APART from STORIES from unknown persons who never met Jesus?
None of the NT books were written by anyone who met Jesus - that's the form consensus of modern NT scholars. But believers simply don't know, or refuse to accept it.
In all of the NT writings - there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have personallly met a Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)
I'll make a post about that I think.
Kapyong
Gday,
You don't have 2000 years of witnesses. You have 2000 years of BELIEF (with no hard evidence of any actual witnesses to start with.)
But 2000 years of BELIEFS?
What about the 3000 years of Jewish beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Greek beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Hindu beliefs?
Your 2000 years of beliefs are worth as much as any religious beliefs, or maybe 2/3 as much.
Oh please!
If it comes down to pure NUMBERS, then there are more that DON'T believe in Jesus than DO believe.
But it doesn't come down to numbers at all.
And claims against Jesus did NOT start just 200 years ago - that's another Christian myth.
From the very beginnings, the stories were doubted :
Celsus,
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
Porphyry,
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”
Julian,
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”
Ah, the ol' "historical documents" trick !
As if anyone would fall for that old chestnut.
Of course the Gospels are documents which were written way back in ancient history. Just like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Odyssey of Homer, or the Golden Ass of Apuleis.
But some people mistakenly think, or deliberately mis-represent this phrase "historical documents" as if it means a "record of ancient history". Surely no-one here would fall for that basic trick ?
Because the Gospels are most certainly NOT a record of ancient history. The Gospels are NOT found under History in a library - they are found under religion, with the other religious books.
Is the Egyptian Book of the Dead a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Is the Golden Ass of Apuleis a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Of course they are, just as much as the Gospels, but I wonder if M.O.M. believes the stories in those books ?
M.O.M. is actually trying to use a simple word trick to magically turn the Gospels into "history". Ignoring the clear facts that the Gospels are NOT history at all - they are religious stories.
There we have it!
Now that M.O.M. has claimed the Gospels are "historical documents", he can just use the Gospels as evidence that the Gospel stories are true !
How do we know the stories about Jesus are true ?
... Because the Gospels say so.
How do we know the Gospels are true?
... Because they are "historical documents" !
No, don't laugh - that appears to REALLY be the argument here. There is no real evidence for Jesus, so it always has to come back to the Gospels, and when we point out how little there is outside the Gospels, we get more excuses why the Gospels really are good evidence after all.
Kapyong
You don't have 2000 years of witnesses. You have 2000 years of BELIEF (with no hard evidence of any actual witnesses to start with.)
But 2000 years of BELIEFS?
What about the 3000 years of Jewish beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Greek beliefs?
What about the 3000 years of Hindu beliefs?
Your 2000 years of beliefs are worth as much as any religious beliefs, or maybe 2/3 as much.
Oh please!
If it comes down to pure NUMBERS, then there are more that DON'T believe in Jesus than DO believe.
But it doesn't come down to numbers at all.
And claims against Jesus did NOT start just 200 years ago - that's another Christian myth.
From the very beginnings, the stories were doubted :
Celsus,
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
Porphyry,
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”
Julian,
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”
Ah, the ol' "historical documents" trick !
As if anyone would fall for that old chestnut.
Of course the Gospels are documents which were written way back in ancient history. Just like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Odyssey of Homer, or the Golden Ass of Apuleis.
But some people mistakenly think, or deliberately mis-represent this phrase "historical documents" as if it means a "record of ancient history". Surely no-one here would fall for that basic trick ?
Because the Gospels are most certainly NOT a record of ancient history. The Gospels are NOT found under History in a library - they are found under religion, with the other religious books.
Is the Egyptian Book of the Dead a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Is the Golden Ass of Apuleis a "historical document", M.O.M. ?
Of course they are, just as much as the Gospels, but I wonder if M.O.M. believes the stories in those books ?
M.O.M. is actually trying to use a simple word trick to magically turn the Gospels into "history". Ignoring the clear facts that the Gospels are NOT history at all - they are religious stories.
There we have it!
Now that M.O.M. has claimed the Gospels are "historical documents", he can just use the Gospels as evidence that the Gospel stories are true !
How do we know the stories about Jesus are true ?
... Because the Gospels say so.
How do we know the Gospels are true?
... Because they are "historical documents" !
No, don't laugh - that appears to REALLY be the argument here. There is no real evidence for Jesus, so it always has to come back to the Gospels, and when we point out how little there is outside the Gospels, we get more excuses why the Gospels really are good evidence after all.
Kapyong
One smoking gun for Jesus Christ in the cross is the well documented Roman persecution of the Christians, using extreme methods of cruelty. Roma was very much afraid of the powerless followers of Christ, to the point they thought they needed to eliminate them
What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire? It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.
Rome did not persecute atheism because it was easy to control via addictive behavior. Animals can be easily led to excesses. Rationalis was the goddess of reason, and her followers were not seen as a threat, that could make management totally freak out.
The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death? And what would would it take to make those in charge, so fearful and insecure, as to lose all sense of humanity. An eye witness accont of strange events might help.
What would have creates so much fear and insecurity, in management, compare to all the other religions Rome allowed to practive within their empire? It was due to eye witness accounts of strange phenonena that could motivated its followers even to death.
Rome did not persecute atheism because it was easy to control via addictive behavior. Animals can be easily led to excesses. Rationalis was the goddess of reason, and her followers were not seen as a threat, that could make management totally freak out.
The question becomes what would it take to cause people to maintain a following even to the point of being rounded up for a cruel tortuous death? And what would would it take to make those in charge, so fearful and insecure, as to lose all sense of humanity. An eye witness accont of strange events might help.
I don't buy that.
The Romans had, for example, an active practice of selective infanticide, they had no scruples throwing unwanted infants into the river in broad daylight.
Or because the Christians were like rats.
Really? You think the Romans payed for prostitutes, wine and food in excess for the atheists?
Besides the truth, the candidates are pride, illusion, revenge, hatred ...
The Romans had plenty of "humanity." It just wasn't what we nowadays consider "humanity."
Huh?
If they were "powerless" then why would the Romans be afraid?
@wellwisher --
Well the Jewish people, you see, had this tendency towards rebellion. At the time in question the area was rife with prophets and supposed "christs", see Apollonius of Tyana, many of whom preached apocalyptic messages and inciting unrest. The christians were first viewed as an outgrowth of these apocalyptic prophets and were accused of stirring unrest. Hence their persecution.
Also, persecution seems to be built into most religions. The Romans were actually quite tolerant of other beliefs so long as they were at least similar to their mythology, in other words so long as they were polytheistic and/or didn't seem to pose a threat to their secular rule. Christianity, by Roman standards, was a huge threat merely because of it's shape. It was, and sort of still is, a doomsday religion. Is it any wonder that the people trying to rule the world would persecute such beliefs?
None of the persecution indicates anything about the veracity of their claims.
Oh please, this is absolute nonsense. The entire ancient world is full of accounts of strange phenomenon, the Romans were no stranger to this. The better explanation is the one I already offered.
You're full of shit. You do realize that when the Romans were persecuting the christians they accused them of atheism because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. right? And you do realize that the christians accused them of atheism right back because they did believe in the Roman gods, right?
There wasn't one of the great, ancient civilizations that didn't persecute atheism. Atheism has been persecuted for all of history, including now.
Wait, you think that a cause needs to be true to motivate people to sacrifice their lives or kill in the name of it? Are you completely ignorant of history? Have you ever heard of the Heaven's Gate cult? They all committed suicide in the pursuit of an absolutely false doctrine. Or perhaps you'd rather look at the scientologists who are willing to pursue their beliefs even to death despite the fact that they're demonstrably false and were only created by Hubbard to win a bet that he could rule the world.
Because humans always need a true reason to lie down their lives. You need to educate yourself about human history and the human brain.
Well the Jewish people, you see, had this tendency towards rebellion. At the time in question the area was rife with prophets and supposed "christs", see Apollonius of Tyana, many of whom preached apocalyptic messages and inciting unrest. The christians were first viewed as an outgrowth of these apocalyptic prophets and were accused of stirring unrest. Hence their persecution.
Also, persecution seems to be built into most religions. The Romans were actually quite tolerant of other beliefs so long as they were at least similar to their mythology, in other words so long as they were polytheistic and/or didn't seem to pose a threat to their secular rule. Christianity, by Roman standards, was a huge threat merely because of it's shape. It was, and sort of still is, a doomsday religion. Is it any wonder that the people trying to rule the world would persecute such beliefs?
None of the persecution indicates anything about the veracity of their claims.
Oh please, this is absolute nonsense. The entire ancient world is full of accounts of strange phenomenon, the Romans were no stranger to this. The better explanation is the one I already offered.
You're full of shit. You do realize that when the Romans were persecuting the christians they accused them of atheism because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. right? And you do realize that the christians accused them of atheism right back because they did believe in the Roman gods, right?
There wasn't one of the great, ancient civilizations that didn't persecute atheism. Atheism has been persecuted for all of history, including now.
Wait, you think that a cause needs to be true to motivate people to sacrifice their lives or kill in the name of it? Are you completely ignorant of history? Have you ever heard of the Heaven's Gate cult? They all committed suicide in the pursuit of an absolutely false doctrine. Or perhaps you'd rather look at the scientologists who are willing to pursue their beliefs even to death despite the fact that they're demonstrably false and were only created by Hubbard to win a bet that he could rule the world.
Because humans always need a true reason to lie down their lives. You need to educate yourself about human history and the human brain.
Now why should I believe any thing you say or post .
Do you believe Abraham existed ,
Do you believe Jehuda the son Jacob existed.
Do you believe King David existed ?
Do you believe Herod the great existed ?
Do you believe Akiba existed ?
If you do why ?
Roman wanted loyalty to the emperor , and christian were not loyal, but were loyal to their faith in Christ .
The lac of loyalty created a weakness to the empire
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Godly day,
1. Either you (kapyong) believe it or you don't.
2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.
1. Either you (kapyong) believe it or you don't.
2. If you cannot give any reason to believe it or not to believe it you are not entitled to decide whether it is true or not - if you are reasonable.