This theory say that Jesus never existed.
I suppose that this is possible why ?
1.Why we don't have the report about his judgement by "Pontius Pilate" ?
2.Why only a historian wrote about Jesus and the source is not very reliable ? (I spoke about Josephus who was a historian).
3.Why Jesus has similar things with others religious characters (Buddha , Horus , Krishna etc...) ? I have two explications this is Satan who inspirated the writers about stories of Horus , Krishna etc... or all these stories was wrote by humans.
4.In this decade there are a lot of cults like the Essenians , maybe that Christianity is the only sect of these movements who survived ?
5.Why all these contradictions (maybe that I don't know use the correlation) and mistakes with the official history in the four gospels ?
I believe mythism is reasonably likely. Topic comes up regularly here.
Recreating your old threads I see.
There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.
Though the fact that there's no traces of his actual name, Yeshua ben Yussuf, until hundreds of years later it would also be perfectly reasonable to assume he is entirely fictional - or based on numerous characters - or perhaps even inspired by one in particular. Though, the story got more and more complex the more recent the writings got, old writings often leaving out huge details you'd think would be key.
Having an opinion here either way, when nothing is proven, and both possibilities seem likely isn't something I'd get behind, so my opinion is just that: "Both are likely".
But the question of which there was a Jesus is really a rather irrelevant one. Of course, relevant to the believers as "No Jesus" = Everything was a lie - but we know Joseph Smith existed, and we certainly know this guy exists: //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_de_Jes%C3%BAs
The existence of people claiming to be prophets, gods or something inbetween is far too common to have any faith in them until they can demonstrate that they are telling the truth.
I put it at about even odds.
I used to believe Jesus existed because anyone throughout history that has spoken about peace and love has been assassinated even in our own time. But there is no evidence that He did at his own time. Everything written about him is 40-60 years later by Christians to support their religion. This could even be true about Buddha since the stories about him are so farfetched. However, I think both have made some good points whether they existed or not. Solitary
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"I put it at about even odds.
Frankly, I'm sort of on the fence about this... For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires. True, those '
Chrestiani' could have been another group altogether than Tacitus thought they were, when he wrote that stuff down (citing a Jesus Christ who was condemned by Pilate, as their leader) and also true, Christians who called themselves that in 64 AD in Rome in considerable numbers? That has it's difficulties as well.....
And of course he wasn't contemporary with Christ. But it is not unthinkable that Tacitus didn't quote what he heard from Christians contemporary to him about the subject. This in itself doesn't 'prove' Christ, but it causes many people to think that he might have existed.
Gerard
Quote from: "Gerard"For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires.
FYI, to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but, to my understanding, many historians (not connected to Jesus mythicism) now feel the Tacitus claim is spurious, Nero didn't scapegoat anybody, Christians or otherwise, in regard to the fire.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Gerard"For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires.
FYI, to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but, to my understanding, many historians (not connected to Jesus mythicism) now feel the Tacitus claim is spurious, Nero didn't scapegoat anybody, Christians or otherwise, in regard to the fire.
Oh there are difficulties with the quote all right. He describes Pilate as a 'procurator' (procurators couldn't let people be crucified you know) while in fact he was a prefect. He also doesn't cite his sources when it comes to his description of the beliefs of these 'Chrestiani' he is talking about, that were being targeted by Nero a considerable number of decades earlier. That led to speculation he had heard about a group called Chrestiani that were persecuted by Nero, and equated them with the Christians he knew from his own days. And that might be a.) what happened, and b.) a problem.... Several messianic groups might have used a name like that in Nero's days, that were not necessarily followers of the messias known as Jesus.... But on the other hand, the quote doesn't seem to be a forgery or interpolation and Tacitus was a serious historian who had no reason to "lie for Jesus" as some other writers (notably Eusebius). There is some doubt in my mind as to whether he may not actually have been referring to followers of Jesus in 64 AD which would be the most early reference there is by a non Christian writer.....
Gerard
Also.....(on the other hand). In the last few days I have been re reading my old textbook on antiquity from college days. This book (published somewhere in the seventies) says something you still hear often. It says something like this: "Nowadays there are few historians anymore that doubt the historicity of Jesus". Whenever I hear or read that (and it's being said and written A LOT) it strikes me as odd that such a phrase has to be included in the first place. That is telling about the fact that there is indeed no contemporary evidence of his personal existence as an historical person. Which I do not deny! It's also telling about the lingering feeling of doubt that exists on the side of those historians.
In the other post I said:
Quotethe quote doesn't seem to be a forgery or interpolation
I wonder if there are any thoughts about that, that I might not know of...
Gerard
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Recreating your old threads I see.
There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.
More likely, a descendant of Joseph Maccabeus trying to kick the Romans out of Israel. The Jewish conception of "messiah" is not the same as the Greek conception of "christ" and a Jewish Messiah is someone sent by YHVH to save Israel, not save souls.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Recreating your old threads I see.
There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.
More likely, a descendant of Joseph Maccabeus trying to kick the Romans out of Israel. The Jewish conception of "messiah" is not the same as the Greek conception of "christ" and a Jewish Messiah is someone sent by YHVH to save Israel, not save souls.
Well, not the Greek concept that was written down (in Greek) in the New Testament indeed, but I wonder what the Greek translators of the Old Testament (Septuagint) thought about that some centuries earlier. At that time, Hellenistic Greeks may not have been into the saving of souls, but perhaps into the concept of "Logos". An intermediary between the Divine principle and us folks here on Earth, that existed solely to be understood (by us) as an intermediary between our world and something impossible for us to understand. It is proposed that such notions existed and flourished, long before polytheïsm in the Greco-Roman and wider Indo-European sense (I know you have some opinions on that :-D ) actually started to decline.
Gerard
I believe he was a real person, mainly due to the fact that the gospels seem to bend over backwards to explain away inconvenient details of his biography. For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?
It's certainly not definitive proof, but I believe that Socrates and Homer existed on similarly thin evidence. It's not an area where I require a lot of evidence, since it's usually not that consequential either way and definitive evidence is often difficult to come by in these cases.
Quote from: "pato15"I believe he was a real person, mainly due to the fact that the gospels seem to bend over backwards to explain away inconvenient details of his biography. For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?
It's certainly not definitive proof, but I believe that Socrates and Homer existed on similarly thin evidence. It's not an area where I require a lot of evidence, since it's usually not that consequential either way and definitive evidence is often difficult to come by in these cases.
Funny you should mention Homer, because his existence is generally doubted. Unlike Socrates.... Perhaps that is related to the nature of discourse about them or from them. Myth and poetry versus something that looks like an historical account. Like Jesus (or Homer) versus Solon (or Alexander the Great). Or Romulus and Remus versus Hannibal.....
Gerard
Quote from: "pato15"For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?
The (potential) reason for that is that Mark, the original Gospel, didn't see Jesus as being the Messiah and thus didn't need to have Jesus come from Bethlehem. It was later, when Jesus started to become associated with being the Messiah that they had to "retcon" the deal.
Speaking of Homer, I recently heard than many historians now see Homer's works as historical fiction, that is, real events were the backdrop of the story at least to some degree.
Quote from: "pato15"I believe he was a real person, mainly due to the fact that the gospels seem to bend over backwards to explain away inconvenient details of his biography. For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?
They made up a story about the census, long after Rome held censuses, because Rome never required people to return to their place of birth for a census, it required them to return to their place of residence. Which wouldn't have placed Mary and Joseph in the predicament of requiring a "place at the inn", Jesus would have been born at home, like everyone else was. If they had told that story while Rome still held censuses, everyone would have laughed at it. It would be like a story told today, in which everyone had to go to Washington, DC to vote. Tell that 5,000 years after the end of the US (we have access to records, they didn't - so things were easier to fake back then), and it might well be believed.
But the rest of the story wouldn't have worked that way. A literary analysis tells us that the entire story - birth in a manger, three wise men, star in the east, etc., etc., was therefore made up. There's nothing new in the Jesus story. The virgin birth is straight out of Osiris - and wasn't mentioned until a few centuries after it supposedly happened.
And if all that was made up, Jesus probably was too. There's absolutely not a single contemporary word written about this man who walked around performing miracles. In fact, the earliest writing about Jesus was about a spirit, an aspect of God. The earliest mention we have of a human Jesus is from about 187 CE. (Josephus and Tacitus both lived earlier, but we don't have any of their writings dating from that early. We have either copies of copies of copies ... or we have others mentioning writings that supposedly existed - at some time centuries after they died.)
And it's known that "historians" of the time invented "earlier" writings. Even Christian so-called scholars refuse to accept these invented histories - unless they back up the Biblical assertions. Supposed histories that contradict the Bible are called fakes or inventions of the enemies of Christianity. But if a supposed history backs up the canon texts? It's 100% proof of the accuracy of the Bible.
"Jesus of Nazareth"? That's a known miscopying of "Jesus the Nazorite" - which has nothing to do with a place called Nazareth.
Bottom line? There's no actual evidence that the Jesus in the Gospels ever existed, and plenty of evidence that many of the claims for his existence were made up or otherwise erroneously arrived at. (We don't even know who wrote the Gospels. No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aren't the names of 4 men who hung out with Jesus and wrote the Gospels. If they were, they were in diapers when they were hanging with him, or so old when they wrote the Gospels that they were drooling into their manuscripts. "Luke" even claims, right at the beginning, to be not an eyewitness account but what we'd call a meta-account these days. Yet Christianity swears that every word in it is true.)
Actual evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed? There's far more evidence that Superman existed.
Quote from: "Colanth"They made up a story about the census, long after Rome held censuses
My point was,
why would they make up the census story, if they were creating the Jesus character out of whole cloth? They could have simply said he was born in Bethlehem.
Quote from: "pato15"My point was, why would they make up the census story, if they were creating the Jesus character out of whole cloth? They could have simply said he was born in Bethlehem.
I gave you a possible answer already on prior page.
If you've got the time...
[youtube:iv5z2sxw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc[/youtube:iv5z2sxw]
Quote from: "Sleeper"If you've got the time...
I did. It was extremely interesting - thank you. As I've said many times, Christianity has very little to do with the Bible.
But try getting a Christian to believe Carrier.
I'd also recommend TruthSurge's YouTube series "Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?" Very thorough.
Quote from: "Sleeper"If you've got the time...
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc)
I have today.... I'll be watching this.
Thanks,
Gerard
Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).
Gerard
Quote from: "Gerard"Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).
You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all. He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical. I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards. He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.
I don't tend to accept the oft-put forward mythicist hypotheses because they're usually predicated on bad comparisons between Jesus and other mythological figures like Osiris and Mithras, and claiming Jesus to be an obvious reworking of said character (something historical scholarship tends to show as being rather faulty). Basically, if you're using that Zeitgeist movie as your informant then you're going down the wrong path.
To me, it's a more solid case (in more general discussions) to demonstrate the existence of common, general mythological elements and narratives present in Christianity such as being the son of a divine power, having a chief deity with multiple aspects (Egyptian and Hindu tri-aspect gods like Ra and Vishnu predate Christianity's Trinity by thousands of years), virgin birth that you see everywhere, to name a few.
I'll be sure to check out Carrier and Doherty's work; my interest has been piqued. I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Gerard"Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).
You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all. He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical. I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards. He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.
I never read Carrier's work on this. It's been a few years since I read Doherty.
Gerard
Quote from: "Gerard"I never read Carrier's work on this. It's been a few years since I read Doherty.
Gerard
Well, his book will be out later this year.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Gerard"Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).
You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all. He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical. I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards. He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.
Carrier said that
people were telling him that Doherty's book was the most compelling mythicist argument at the time.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)
Erhman isn't a mythicist, but he sure makes a lot of mythicist points.
Quote from: "Sleeper"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)
Erhman isn't a mythicist, but he sure makes a lot of mythicist points.
Hm, I've not really seen them in either his
Misquoting Jesus or
Lost Christianities. At least not overtly.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Hm, I've not really seen them in either his Misquoting Jesus or Lost Christianities. At least not overtly.
Definitely NOT overtly, given that he staunchly defends historicity. Its just that some of his arguments actually help the mythist case, in spite of himself. Like in Forged, Ehrman talks about how people just made shit up.
The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.
Tacitus also wrote about Jesus. Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian. The Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.
Actually, the entire reference by Josephus is questioned. I agree that there are a lot of scholars that consider it partially genuine. But there are a lot that think it is 100% fabrication.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Tacitus also wrote about Jesus.
Actually, he primarily wrote about Christians, which nobody doubts existed. He does state that Jesus what crucified under Pilate, but, we don't know his source. He probably just got it from other Christians.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian. The Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.
LOL. Only if they have a Christian bias. Luke doesn't tell his sources, other than a brief claim that the details were "handed down" from the first eyewitnesses. He doesn't tell us about competing traditions, which we know existed. He doesn't tell us how he decided what was true and what was false.
And, he did a lot of cut and pasting from Mark, which we know is from oral traditions which could not have been verified.
Don't hand us your bullshit apologetics lines. We fucking know better.
So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?
Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.
Everyone has biases, so you can't throw out an entire historical account based on bias. Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?
Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier. Me.
Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false. His writing was pro Jewish in every way. He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone. He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.
I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was. I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.
And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise. So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe. In short, they made shit up all the time. It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well. It is not true that it is the usual case. Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified. This is basic, obvious stuff here. If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not. Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?
Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.
Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about? This is a serious question. Do you have one fucking clue?
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"The disputed Josephus passages have to do with whether or not he called Jesus the Messiah or if he reported that Jesus' disciples called Jesus the Messiah.
"Christian scholars" (apologists with no special expertise) claim that the nature of the writing authenticates or invalidates it, but in the case of that Josephus passage they refuse to accept that the nature of the writing invalidates it. (It would be like a Christian of the day writing "Our Lord Zeus".)
QuoteTacitus also wrote about Jesus.
He wrote about an anointed leader, he never wrote about Jesus.
QuoteModern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian.
"Luke" itself claims to just be clarifying the writings of others. (Scholars read this as "adding more to the story".)
QuoteThe Apostle Paul is also considered to be a very reliable source.
By some, not all, scholars. Same problems, though - who wrote Paul and when? We have Christian myth but no evidence.
And you keep confusing "scholar" - someone who has studied history or a relevant science (depending on what we're talking about) - with "Christian apologist" - someone who, at most, has studied the Bible and other Christian sources. Sources that history and science actually contradict.
Remember - if your beliefs and reality don't agree, it's not reality that's wrong.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Tacitus also wrote about Jesus.
Actually, he primarily wrote about Christians, which nobody doubts existed. He does state that Jesus what crucified under Pilate
Actually, he never mentions Jesus.
""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"
"Christus" means "anointed", it's not Jesus' family name. He's saying that the name of the group comes from the fact that its leader was anointed. "The anointed one" suffered. Christianity steals that as "Jesus suffered".
And if he had such reliable sources, why did he get Pilate's title so wrong?
"during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
Pilate was prefect, not procurator. The ruler of Judea in Tacitus' time was a procurator, but that wasn't true in Jesus [supposed] time, so the entire thing is suspect.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
What was taught was the Bible (the OT, of course). Oral tradition was important up until the Bible was committed to writing, about 400 years earlier. And there's nothing in oral tradition about Jesus. (Isaiah was about a warlord with the name Emmanuel - not about a man who could be, with a lot of tortured twisting, be called "God is with us". That's Christian stuff added on, that the Jews who wrote it never intended.)
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe.
"Not nearly as good"?
According to oral tradition, Exodus happened and, at the time it happened the Hebrews were totally monotheistic.
According to archaeology it never happened (we know what actually happened in Canaan) and they were polytheistic at the time.
"Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.
Quote from: "Colanth"Pilate was prefect, not procurator. The ruler of Judea in Tacitus' time was a procurator, but that wasn't true in Jesus [supposed] time, so the entire thing is suspect.
Richard Carrier says this part is not correct. He could have had both titles.
Quote from: "Colanth""Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.
LOL. Well, there are really two issues. One is how well the oral tradition is preserved in repeated tellings. And the other issue is how accurate it represents reality. Jews and Christians like to tout claims of at least the first, that they were capable of maintaining accuracy over repeated tellings. And it is easy to concede that at least some people, with effort, can maintain accuracy over repeated tellings. But, even if some people can, that doesn't mean that everybody at the time could. This was the part that I was referring to, that Ehrman indicates that the ability to maintain accuracy over repeated tellings wasn't, in general, as good as they would have us believe.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Colanth""Not nearly meaningful in the slightest" would be getting a little closer.
LOL. Well, there are really two issues. One is how well the oral tradition is preserved in repeated tellings. And the other issue is how accurate it represents reality. Jews and Christians like to tout claims of at least the first, that they were capable of maintaining accuracy over repeated tellings.
Since the Jewish Bible was actually (at least) 4 different books that were combined into one during the Exile, and they were all different (Isaac killed, no story about God telling Abraham to kill Isaac, God telling Abraham but changing his mind), it's difficult to say "capable of maintaining accuracy" with a straight face. How can 4 contradictory stories all be "accurate"?
QuoteAnd it is easy to concede that at least some people, with effort, can maintain accuracy over repeated tellings.
Trained storytellers can, but the Hebrews didn't have a tradition of trained storytellers.
QuoteBut, even if some people can, that doesn't mean that everybody at the time could. This was the part that I was referring to, that Ehrman indicates that the ability to maintain accuracy over repeated tellings wasn't, in general, as good as they would have us believe.
I think that Ehrman is giving them FAR too much credit. For one instance, the Noah tale is the Babylonian story, butchered beyond recognition - WHILE the Hebrews writing it lived in Babylon. It's almost proof, alone, that the story is made up. (The story is physically impossible but even if it weren't, the distance it was taken from Gilgamesh in such a short time labels it a fairy tale.)
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?
Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier. Me.
Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false. His writing was pro Jewish in every way. He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone. He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.
I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was. I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.
And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise. So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe. In short, they made shit up all the time. It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well. It is not true that it is the usual case. Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified. This is basic, obvious stuff here. If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not. Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?
Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.
Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about? This is a serious question. Do you have one fucking clue?
1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"So who exactly is calling Josephus a forgery?
Well, off the top of my head, Earl Doherty, Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier. Me.
Josephus wrote of four other people claimed to be the Messiah. In every case, he condemned them as being false. His writing was pro Jewish in every way. He would not have written about Jesus in some neutral tone. He would have condemned him as a false Messiah like all the others.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Why would Tacitus believe Christians? He was a Roman non-Christian. He had Roman bias.
I would normally believe Christians too, on at least who Jesus Christ was. I fully accept that at least normally, if lots of people think someone existed, it is reasonable to accept they at least existed even if I disbelieve a lot of what is said. So, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he would have accepted at least the basics of who Jesus was on face value without research.
And, regardless, the fact is, we do not know his source, Christians or otherwise. So we cannot say he has any reliable knowledge. Regardless of what his source was, it is at least second hand or more. Thus, it doesn't matter who the fuck his source was, he is too late to be considered a reliable source of Jesus' existence.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Yes, the oral tradition of Jesus preserved His historical life, since oral tradition was extremely important to first-century Jews and was taught to them well in their schools. :)
At least according to Bart Ehrman, the reliability of Jewish oral tradition is not nearly as good as Jews and Christians would have us believe. In short, they made shit up all the time. It is true that *some* people can reliably memorize and transfer oral traditions well. It is not true that it is the usual case. Oral traditions are inherently unreliable because they cannot be verified. This is basic, obvious stuff here. If I give you something that was transmitted orally and you have no way to trace it back to its source, would you accept it at face value? No, of course not. Except when it is YOUR FUCKING RELIGION. They, oh, yeah, its pure perfectly reliable. Horseshit.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"Which passages do you think he 'cut and pasted' from Mark?
Please. Mark, Matthew and Luke aren't called the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for nothing.
Do you have the slightest fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about? This is a serious question. Do you have one fucking clue?
Epic, Case. Totally epic !! =D> :rollin: =D> :rollin:
Can I get a laughing, rolling widget that claps with gleee, please?
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
I think you are probably correct here. But, to my knowledge, no scholar arguing that it is partially genuine has explained why Josephus would have wrote of Jesus in neutral terms when he condemned other would-be Messiahs.
Bottom line here is, there is no absolute guarantee either way. I accept that it is at least possible that there was something genuine. And if that is true, then that would be good evidence against mythist position. But, I think it simply at least as likely that it is total fabrication.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
With all things in historical study, there are simply degrees of certainty. For example, today we discard lots of what Josephus says. His pro-Roman, pro-Jewish bias is believed to have tainted his reporting. And when he reports stories of chariots flying in the sky (which he does) we dismiss it as simply impossible. See, history research requires some common sense, and a lot of estimation.
With any claim by any historian, we can only estimate how likely they are to be correct. They could have used a known generally good source, and still be wrong. They could have used a known unreliable source, and yet get something right. In the particular case, for one, as far as Tacitus on Jesus, as Colanth pointed out, there is debate as to even if his reference to "Chrestus" is actually Jesus the Christ. But, even if we accept it for sake of argument that it is about Jesus, since we don't know his source, and given that he would probably accept something as trivial as the existence of Jesus from Christians, even if he otherwise didn't like Christians, makes the particular claim not very strong. I accept it is at least possible that he was talking about Jesus and did have a good source. In which case, that would again be a good argument against the myth theory. But, the strength of the claim isn't strong enough to carry much weight.
See, history study isn't so much a case of "throwing things out" as it is going with preponderance of evidence and giving each specific claim an estimated probability of being correct.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
No shit! Really? Known Christian apologists argue on the side of Christianity? Who'd a thunk that???
Seriously, I know that there is bias on all sides. The references I gave, Price, Carrier, etc. are biased against Christianity. So it isn't all that surprising that your sources favor your side, my sources favor my side. But, these are pretty much known facts. Average people of the time didn't really have a concept of accurate reporting. Nobody had TV's, newspapers, Internet, etc. Most people were more interested in what they felt was "spiritual truth" in the stories they told, rather than accurate reporting. They had no way to know what was really accurate or not, nowhere they could look facts up. Thus the entire concept of accurate reporting was foreign to them.
Thus we know for a fact that as a general rule, oral reports were not reliable. If you want, I can dig up a quote from a historian of the time who said as much. I don't remember which one, I'd have to go searching. But I know that someone like Josephus specifically lamented the fact that tales grow taller on down the line.
Even if I accept that some Jewish scholars were trained in reliable storytelling, that says NOTHING about the specific people whom the original Christian stories came from. You can't say, "some people were reliable", therefore "the people who passed the original Christian stories on down were reliable"
Again, as Colanth pointed out, we know of specific things in the OT that never happened, like the Exodus. These were events passed down orally, and never happened.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
Well, there is a some debate whether there was a Q, or whether Matthew itself is actually is Q. But, for sake of argument, I'll go with Q. In any case, Mark didn't use Q. I wasn't mentioning Q, I was mentioning Mark. But, indeed, Luke used both Mark and Q (or Matthew) So, he cut and pasted from Mark and Q.
I agree that each of the Gospels have some amount that is unique to the Gospel. And, by the way, when they diverge from Mark & Q is where they have the most contradictions.
In any case, you seem to now concede that Luke did cut and paste from other sources, sources that are oral traditions that cannot be verified. So, you've just conceded the argument. You've lost.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.
Lee Strobel. LOL. He's a cheap hack. I happen to be a Strobel expert of sorts. I have on my website refutations of all the Case for ... books. And I don't make a fucking dime on it, you can read it all for free. Strobel is a conman selling books and making himself rich off fools like you.
Check out my site. All the articles won't cost you a dime. I'd suggest starting with the Case for Faith article. Then Case for the Real Jesus. Then Case for a Creator. Do Case for Christ last, as the papers on my site for Case for Christ were not written by me. All the others are mine.
(See my signature for link)
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Epic, Case. Totally epic !! =D> :rollin: =D> :rollin:
Can I get a laughing, rolling widget that claps with gleee, please?
Thanks Bri!!!!
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars.
Quote2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus. "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.
Quote3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.
Quote4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.
[/quote]I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:3113xfgy]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:3113xfgy], and others are excellent sources.[/quote]Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones? (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for? That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Colanth, the above post of mine written in a completely different sense than the current conversation. Lol. But probably you got that.
Since you responded to something in an entirely different sense than my post, yes. The writing down of the Old Testament meant that no one had to rely on oral tradition any longer, because they had advanced to written tradition. Cultures that have their important works written down soon stop honoring oral historians, and the ability to accurately recite volumes of history soon leaves the culture. It happened to the Hebrews of the Exile, the people who wrote most of the Old Testament (some parts were added later), soon after 500 BCE. (It's most likely that all the Hebrews living in a single city would have been a pretty homogenous group, especially if they were captives.)
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars. (BTW, the particular passage - and that's all I'm talking about here - is called an insertion, not a forgery.)
Quote2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus. "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.
Quote3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.
Quote4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.
I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:2qpff15l]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:2qpff15l], and others are excellent sources.[/quote]Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones? (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for? That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)[/quote]
Having some issues with the formatting there Colanth? :wink:
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars.
Quote2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus. "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.
Quote3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.
Quote4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.
QuoteI'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:1ygo89xe]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:1ygo89xe], and others are excellent sources.
Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones? (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for? That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)
Fixed it for yeh.
Oops. Yeah, I sometimes forget to add a closing quote code, and I submit without previewing. (Well, I forget quite often, but I usually preview before submitting and catch it.)
Thanks.
Quote from: "PilatesQuestion"1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.
Are you arguing ad populum? The question is - "who's right?" Not, "how many?" If you remove the obvious interpolations, it creates a one, maybe two sentence section in the midst of hefty paragraphs - and it also does not fit in with the "sad calamities" [Josephus' words] that were the subjects of sections 2 and 4. The Jesus section is a hiccup - remove it altogether, making section 4 section 3, and the whole thing flows effortlessly and holds context.
Quote2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.
Please consider these two passages:
[spoil:1r1iibhh]
Quote from: "Tacitus"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 Judæa, 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.
[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
[spoil:1r1iibhh]
Quote from: "Tacitus"The initiative in transferring the Empire to Vespasian was taken at Alexandria under the prompt direction of Tiberius Alexander, who on the 1st of July made the legions swear allegiance to him. That day was ever after celebrated as the first of his reign, though the army of Judaea on July 3rd took the oath to Vespasian in person with such eager alacrity that they would not wait for the return of his son Titus, who was then on his way back from Syria, acting as the medium between Mucianus and his father for the communication of their plans. All this was done by the impulsive action of the soldiers without the preliminary of a formal harangue or any concentration of the legions.
While they were seeking a suitable time and place, and for that which in such an affair is the great difficulty, the first man to speak, while hope, fear, the chances of success or of disaster, were present to their minds, one day, on Vespasian quitting his chamber, a few soldiers who stood near, in the usual form in which they would salute their legate, suddenly saluted him as Emperor. Then all the rest hurried up, called him Caesar and Augustus, and heaped on him all the titles of Imperial rank. Their minds had passed from apprehension to confidence of success. In Vespasian there appeared no sign of elation or arrogance, or of any change arising from his changed fortunes. As soon as he had dispelled the mist with which so astonishing a vicissitude had clouded his vision, he addressed the troops in a soldier-like style, and listened to the joyful intelligence that came pouring in from all quarters. This was the very opportunity for which Mucianus had been waiting. He now at once administered to the eager soldiers the oath of allegiance to Vespasian. Then he entered the theatre at Antioch, where it is customary for the citizens to hold their public deliberations, and as they crowded together with profuse expressions of flattery, he addressed them. He could speak Greek with considerable grace, and in all that he did and said he had the art of displaying himself to advantage. Nothing excited the provincials and the army so much as the assertion of Mucianus that Vitellius had determined to remove the legions of Germany to Syria, to an easy and lucrative service, while the armies of Syria were to have given them in exchange the encampments of Germany with their inclement climate and their harassing toils. On the one hand, the provincials from long use felt a pleasure in the companionship of the soldiers, with whom many of them were connected by friendship or relationship; on the other, the soldiers from the long duration of their service loved the well-known and familiar camp as a home.
Before the 15th of July the whole of Syria had adopted the same alliance. There joined him, each with his entire kingdom, Sohemus, who had no contemptible army, and Antiochus, who possessed vast ancestral wealth, and was the richest of all the subject-kings. Before long Agrippa, who had been summoned from the capital by secret despatches from his friends, while as yet Vitellius knew nothing, was crossing the sea with all speed. Queen Berenice too, who was then in the prime of youth and beauty, and who had charmed even the old Vespasian by the splendour of her presents, promoted his cause with equal zeal. All the provinces washed by the sea, as far as Asia and Achaia, and the whole expanse of country inland towards Pontus and Armenia, took the oath of allegiance. The legates, however, of these provinces were without troops, Cappadocia as yet having had no legions assigned to it. A council was held at Berytus to deliberate on the general conduct of the war. Thither came Mucianus with the legates and tribunes and all the most distinguished centurions and soldiers, and thither also the picked troops of the army of Judaea. Such a vast assemblage of cavalry and infantry, and the pomp of the kings that strove to rival each other in magnificence, presented an appearance of Imperial splendour.
[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
If a consideration of yours is the attention paid by Tacitus, you should seriously consider worshipping Vespasian.
Quote3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.
Maybe. Kind of a flimsy channel for the omnipotent, omniscient creator though, right? Even if their oral tradition was rock solid (which is more than debatable), you know what it's not? Proof. Of anything. Of any kind. And it wasn't good enough for even the gospels to agree with each other.
Quote4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.
Please consider these passages just from the first synchronous events of the first two (chronological) gospels, Mark and Matthew:
[spoil:1r1iibhh]
Quote"Now John was clothed with camel hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and he ate locusts and wild honey." Mark 1:6.
~vs~
"Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey." Matthew 3:4.
[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
[spoil:1r1iibhh]
Quote"Now After John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." - Mark 1:14,15.
~vs~
"Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled..." - Matthew 4:12-14.
[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
[spoil:1r1iibhh]
Quote"Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them 'Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.' and immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending nets. And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him." - Mark 1:16-20.
~vs~
"While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him." - Matthew 4:18-22.
[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
There are numerous other examples throughout the gospels of nearly word-for-word recitations. If one wishes to avoid needless hypotheses, the most likely explanation is that the three later gospels were copied from Mark, then embellished for theological purposes.
QuoteI'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.
We're pretty familiar with all of them, and.... they're not
completely excellent. Far from it, actually. Habermas, I think, is the best of them.
Oh, and...
QuoteModern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian.
Read The Mystery of Acts (//http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6098359-the-mystery-of-acts) by Richard Purvo and you may just rip Luke and Acts out of your Bible.
Sulpicius Severus - Chronica a 5th century work - Book II - XXIX
//http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII11-5.TXT
QuoteCHAPTER XXIX.
Is the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it
happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at
Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the
emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of
building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried
escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He
therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel
tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds
of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts,
they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain
by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day
came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the
night.
No writer, xtian or pagan, prior to Severus makes reference to Tacitus' alleged writing about Nero punishing xtians and Severus himself does not cite Tacitus as a source nor does he have the whole of the so called passage. Note also that Severus leaves our all the Pilate stuff and Christ stuff. Further, as Candida Moss notes in "The Myth of Persecution" this is right around the time that the church started dredging up these blood curdling martyr tales as a means of motivating the masses.
Convenient.
//http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tacitus-and-bracciolini-the-annals-forged-in-the-xvth-century-john-wilson-ross/1103649453?ean=9781455409402
It always makes me laugh whenever a Christian is asked to provide some extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and all they can is pull out the Josephus quote (very likely forged), the Tacitus reference, and a few others. The Bible indicates that Jesus healed the sick, the lame, and the blind, raised dead people to life, walked on water, turned water into wine, and did all those other miracles. Most of them were witnessed by hundreds of people who tagged along with him like lost puppies, doting on his every word. Why did NONE of those people write about him? Surely, stories of his miracles would have reached various Jewish and Roman officials, who would have written them down as curiosities if nothing else. There should be thousands of references to this Jesus Christ fellow--not just in a few gospels and epistles that were written years and years after he died, by people who never actually knew him, but contemporary writings, made within his lifetime by people who actually witnessed his deeds and sermons. But we find nothing. Not so much a brief mention is made by anyone in all of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, or Galilee--or anywhere else. Why does this not set off any alarm bells in Christians?
QuoteThe Bible indicates that Jesus healed the sick, the lame, and the blind, raised dead people to life, walked on water, turned water into wine, and did all those other miracles.
Um...they would have us believe that he came back from the fucking dead. In an absurdly superstitious society like the Roman Empire the idea that a convicted criminal would come back to life would have been BIG NEWS - all over the Empire. It would have been seen as a repudiation of the emperor ( who appointed the magistrates ) by heaven itself. Yet...from the first century we have not so much as a whisper.
When Pliny, c 112 AD finally writes a report about questioning xtians he mentions nothing along these lines even though he tortured slaves to learn the truth. Tacitus was a personal friend of Pliny. Some of their correspondence survives. To close the circle, Suetonius was a junior officer on Pliny's staff in Asia Minor. None of them know anything about any fucking "jesus." T'is a puzzle.
Quote from: "ApostateLois"But we find nothing. Not so much a brief mention is made by anyone in all of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, or Galilee--or anywhere else. Why does this not set off any alarm bells in Christians?
You used to be one, right? (I never was.) So you tell us why it never set off alarm bells for you.
I NEVER saw any of it as anything other than a fairy tale for adults. Not even when I was 6 (when I first realized that some adults actually believed this stuff).