The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

And remember the missionaries? They went to places like Africa and Hawaii to convert the natives. Why did they need to be converted? If God were so great and Christianity were true, he could have made them Christians himself.

This point - "it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed"!!!

According to the Bible - Exodus 31:18 "When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" - God literally wrote the original ten commandments in stone. Thus, God knew the value of both writing something important down and putting them into a format that was highly durable.

However, there is zero - I repeat, ZERO evidence of anything in writing related to the great sacrifice of God incarnate.

Not just anything in writing. There is no record of him whatsoever, or even from 10 or 15 years after his lifetime. The period was extremely well-documented and much material survives to the present where these events are alleged to have taken place. Writers of the time, if the stories were true, would have had plenty to say about him, and would have had plenty of motivation to write about him. But they didn't write about him. Considering that dozens of prolific writers had abundant means, motive, and opportunity to write something about him but didn't do so, tells us something. It also tells us something that we have many detailed writings of many other cult religions of the same era and geographic location, many about cult religions even smaller than Christianity at the time, but for some reason, we don't have anything about Jesus or his followers until much, much later.

The bolded is so patently false that it is basically self-refuting, but just to call the bluff:

1. There are only an handful of writings from the Roman Empire on any subject dating to 33 AD to 48 AD.

2. It’s not even clear that you’re factually right that no Christian sources come within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. Mainstream scholars tend to think that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians comes from 49 AD, one year outside your window. Some mainstream scholars think that the Epistle of James may come from 45 AD. There is a real case to be made that Galatians comes from 48 AD.

3. There are basically no secular sources that refer to Pilate from that time period. (I believe one reference from Philo may, plus some recently unearthed physical inscription.) you’re not seriously going to suggest that the historical basis for Pilate is shaky are you?

You're going to rely on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Ok, are you saying that nothing in it is disputed and that it is unquestionably the work of Paul? And, you are absolutely positive there is nothing that indicates that it was written after the year 70 CE?

You’re flailing, my friend .

Whether or not people dispute the contents or the First Epistle to the Thessalonians does not increase or diminish the volume of written works from 33 AD to 48 AD.

Flailing. Where is your evidence in support? Those specific years were a time of upheaval. However, we have writings that cover the period, especially the works of Josephus. Yet, in spite of the apologists claims, there are only two references that can be cited, and both of those are disputed.

“Cover the period” =/= “written in the period.”

The claim was that sources within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion were plentiful. I disputed that. Now, you say that sources “covering” the period 10-15 years were plentiful. Well, of course, but that’s not what we were discussing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction.

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction.

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise.

The same logic CAN be employed in the opposite direction. Just as there is a lack of supporting evidence, there is also a lack of gainsay evidence.

[Anonymous]

Jesus mythicism is essentially unknown in the world of people who actually study the first century.

[Anonymous]

How is supporting Jesus even a thing?

Bible thumpers overwhelmingly support nothing Jesus ever said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction.

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise.

The same logic CAN be employed in the opposite direction. Just as there is a lack of supporting evidence, there is also a lack of gainsay evidence.

Imagine a piece of evidence, like a scroll or something. There are three possibilities: (1) “this piece of evidence tends to support the notion that Jesus existed”, (2) “this piece of evidence is silent on the existence of Jesus”, and (3) “this piece of evidence tends to contradict the notion that Jesus existed.” Most pieces of evidence falls in (2). Some evidence falls in (1). I am aware of no evidence that falls in (3).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction.

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise.

The same logic CAN be employed in the opposite direction. Just as there is a lack of supporting evidence, there is also a lack of gainsay evidence.

Imagine a piece of evidence, like a scroll or something. There are three possibilities: (1) “this piece of evidence tends to support the notion that Jesus existed”, (2) “this piece of evidence is silent on the existence of Jesus”, and (3) “this piece of evidence tends to contradict the notion that Jesus existed.” Most pieces of evidence falls in (2). Some evidence falls in (1). I am aware of no evidence that falls in (3).

I do not follow what you mean by (3). The prior argument would fall into your (1) as criticisms (gainsay) of Jesus would be evidence of his existence. However, there are none during this time period either.

Is it not curious that for as much as Christianity was supposed to upset the established Jewish community, they were silent on such disruption? The Sanhedrin was so angry to violate their own laws to try Jesus illegally, yet there is total silence about it from the Jewish community? Josephus and others were unaware or thought it inconsequential to comment on it? No one challenged them on picking an known murderer to pardon over a religious usurper?

How about Pilate and the Romans and official records? For a convicted criminal that was sentenced to death, and for his followers to claim he was still alive, he's just going to let it go? There would be no investigation of how he survived or why his followers were claiming he was? And there are no records of any of this?

The most likely scenario is that these events never took place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

And remember the missionaries? They went to places like Africa and Hawaii to convert the natives. Why did they need to be converted? If God were so great and Christianity were true, he could have made them Christians himself.

This point - "it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed"!!!

According to the Bible - Exodus 31:18 "When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" - God literally wrote the original ten commandments in stone. Thus, God knew the value of both writing something important down and putting them into a format that was highly durable.

However, there is zero - I repeat, ZERO evidence of anything in writing related to the great sacrifice of God incarnate.

Not just anything in writing. There is no record of him whatsoever, or even from 10 or 15 years after his lifetime. The period was extremely well-documented and much material survives to the present where these events are alleged to have taken place. Writers of the time, if the stories were true, would have had plenty to say about him, and would have had plenty of motivation to write about him. But they didn't write about him. Considering that dozens of prolific writers had abundant means, motive, and opportunity to write something about him but didn't do so, tells us something. It also tells us something that we have many detailed writings of many other cult religions of the same era and geographic location, many about cult religions even smaller than Christianity at the time, but for some reason, we don't have anything about Jesus or his followers until much, much later.

The bolded is so patently false that it is basically self-refuting, but just to call the bluff:

1. There are only an handful of writings from the Roman Empire on any subject dating to 33 AD to 48 AD.

2. It’s not even clear that you’re factually right that no Christian sources come within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. Mainstream scholars tend to think that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians comes from 49 AD, one year outside your window. Some mainstream scholars think that the Epistle of James may come from 45 AD. There is a real case to be made that Galatians comes from 48 AD.

3. There are basically no secular sources that refer to Pilate from that time period. (I believe one reference from Philo may, plus some recently unearthed physical inscription.) you’re not seriously going to suggest that the historical basis for Pilate is shaky are you?

You're going to rely on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Ok, are you saying that nothing in it is disputed and that it is unquestionably the work of Paul? And, you are absolutely positive there is nothing that indicates that it was written after the year 70 CE?

You’re flailing, my friend .

Whether or not people dispute the contents or the First Epistle to the Thessalonians does not increase or diminish the volume of written works from 33 AD to 48 AD.

Flailing. Where is your evidence in support? Those specific years were a time of upheaval. However, we have writings that cover the period, especially the works of Josephus. Yet, in spite of the apologists claims, there are only two references that can be cited, and both of those are disputed.

“Cover the period” =/= “written in the period.”

The claim was that sources within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion were plentiful. I disputed that. Now, you say that sources “covering” the period 10-15 years were plentiful. Well, of course, but that’s not what we were discussing!

I assume you are ignoring Philo? The Dead Sea Scrolls also cover some of this period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

Good points!

I disagree. “If God exists, He would’ve done it this way…” makes no sense if the speaker is just a fellow human. God exists or He doesn’t; you have no first principles from which you can explain how He’d go about His business unless you’re already assuming He doesn’t exist.

Also, it’s profoundly unserious to suggest that Jesus outright didn’t exist.

What's your evidence that he did exist?

Among other things, a mass religious movement predicted on his existence led by people who purported to know him personally and zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments to make about religion. This isn’t one of them.

"a mass religious movement" - It was so massive that not one source of information survives during Jesus' supposed lifetime or immediately thereafter

"zero record of anyone at the time disputing his existence" - That same logic can be argued against his existence. For a belief system that was disruptive to the established Jewish community, their silence speaks volumes in the opposite direction.

1. It is objectively a very large religion. I take it your point is that the movement wasn’t massive during Jesus’ time on earth. The literal point of this thread is that it is the Resurrection that led to the growth of the movement. A bit of an “own goal” on your part.

2. The same logic cannot be employed in the opposite direction. That would mean that there is no evidence of Jesus. There of course is. You might not be a Christian, but the historical record as to the existence of Jesus is simply not in equipoise.

The same logic CAN be employed in the opposite direction. Just as there is a lack of supporting evidence, there is also a lack of gainsay evidence.

Imagine a piece of evidence, like a scroll or something. There are three possibilities: (1) “this piece of evidence tends to support the notion that Jesus existed”, (2) “this piece of evidence is silent on the existence of Jesus”, and (3) “this piece of evidence tends to contradict the notion that Jesus existed.” Most pieces of evidence falls in (2). Some evidence falls in (1). I am aware of no evidence that falls in (3).

I do not follow what you mean by (3). The prior argument would fall into your (1) as criticisms (gainsay) of Jesus would be evidence of his existence. However, there are none during this time period either.

Is it not curious that for as much as Christianity was supposed to upset the established Jewish community, they were silent on such disruption? The Sanhedrin was so angry to violate their own laws to try Jesus illegally, yet there is total silence about it from the Jewish community? Josephus and others were unaware or thought it inconsequential to comment on it? No one challenged them on picking an known murderer to pardon over a religious usurper?

How about Pilate and the Romans and official records? For a convicted criminal that was sentenced to death, and for his followers to claim he was still alive, he's just going to let it go? There would be no investigation of how he survived or why his followers were claiming he was? And there are no records of any of this?

The most likely scenario is that these events never took place.

The record is silent if you disregard the record that you don’t like. There are many Christian sources (you discount those as biased), and Josephus does address Jesus (you presumably disregard it as inauthentic). The problem you face is that non-Christian details about this period (like the fact of Pilate’s reign) are just as scarce and often scarcer. So is the evidentiary record light in absolute terms? I guess. Is it light in relative terms? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him.

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge?

And remember the missionaries? They went to places like Africa and Hawaii to convert the natives. Why did they need to be converted? If God were so great and Christianity were true, he could have made them Christians himself.

This point - "it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed"!!!

According to the Bible - Exodus 31:18 "When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" - God literally wrote the original ten commandments in stone. Thus, God knew the value of both writing something important down and putting them into a format that was highly durable.

However, there is zero - I repeat, ZERO evidence of anything in writing related to the great sacrifice of God incarnate.

Not just anything in writing. There is no record of him whatsoever, or even from 10 or 15 years after his lifetime. The period was extremely well-documented and much material survives to the present where these events are alleged to have taken place. Writers of the time, if the stories were true, would have had plenty to say about him, and would have had plenty of motivation to write about him. But they didn't write about him. Considering that dozens of prolific writers had abundant means, motive, and opportunity to write something about him but didn't do so, tells us something. It also tells us something that we have many detailed writings of many other cult religions of the same era and geographic location, many about cult religions even smaller than Christianity at the time, but for some reason, we don't have anything about Jesus or his followers until much, much later.

The bolded is so patently false that it is basically self-refuting, but just to call the bluff:

1. There are only an handful of writings from the Roman Empire on any subject dating to 33 AD to 48 AD.

2. It’s not even clear that you’re factually right that no Christian sources come within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. Mainstream scholars tend to think that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians comes from 49 AD, one year outside your window. Some mainstream scholars think that the Epistle of James may come from 45 AD. There is a real case to be made that Galatians comes from 48 AD.

3. There are basically no secular sources that refer to Pilate from that time period. (I believe one reference from Philo may, plus some recently unearthed physical inscription.) you’re not seriously going to suggest that the historical basis for Pilate is shaky are you?

You're going to rely on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Ok, are you saying that nothing in it is disputed and that it is unquestionably the work of Paul? And, you are absolutely positive there is nothing that indicates that it was written after the year 70 CE?

You’re flailing, my friend .

Whether or not people dispute the contents or the First Epistle to the Thessalonians does not increase or diminish the volume of written works from 33 AD to 48 AD.

Flailing. Where is your evidence in support? Those specific years were a time of upheaval. However, we have writings that cover the period, especially the works of Josephus. Yet, in spite of the apologists claims, there are only two references that can be cited, and both of those are disputed.

“Cover the period” =/= “written in the period.”

The claim was that sources within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion were plentiful. I disputed that. Now, you say that sources “covering” the period 10-15 years were plentiful. Well, of course, but that’s not what we were discussing!

I assume you are ignoring Philo? The Dead Sea Scrolls also cover some of this period.

Again, the dispute was not about what “covers” the period—Christian sources cover the period!— it was about what sources *originate* in the period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Why would a Christian *contemporary* source be suspect? I agree that a much later Christian source could be, but if you’re debating whether a proposition is true, the notion that contemporaries believed it tends to corroborate—not refute—the strength of the case in much the same way that a person who takes up CrossFit on the logic that CrossFit is healthy provides some evidence that CrossFit actually is healthy.

Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth. Also, what did those contemporary Christians believe exactly? The story of Jesus that you think of today is not how many early Christians thought of it. In fact, there wasn't one cohesive narrative among all the sects. And in many ways, there never has been (witness Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc).

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Cite your Christian sources and their validity.

I say this good-naturedly, but this is quite jumbled. To refute my assertion about contemporaries of Christ, you’ve suggested that there were differing views among the “sects,” which you seem to think include Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The Protestant Reformation would not occur for another millennium and a half.

As for your claim that “Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth,” this is kind of circular reasoning. You’re no doubt right that Christians (like all people) have an interest in having their claims believed. But it doesn’t follow that they’re lying, and the fact that they are making the claims at all provide some reason to think that some people thought those claims were true. There’s a great line on an old episode of the Simpson where the police chief says something like “how ironic, the cat burglar was caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.” This reminds me of that. When people have an intent to do something (e.g., promote a religion), there’s nothing necessarily weird about them succeeding. Sure, Christians had a pro-Christianity agenda. But that’s what you’d expect if the religion is true!

The reference to the current sects of Christianity was an example, not to make a claim that is has existed since the beginning of the myth system. Most of the other sects that existed at the beginning of Christianity that were not in accord with what was settled in later centuries were either directly purged from history, or allowed to wither away.

Secondly, if you want to make a claim of something, then you best evidence would be non-biased sources. But, again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Your own Christian sources don't even agree with each other. The gospels can't agree on some of the basics of the story of Jesus. Same can be said of the epistles. Acts has been shown over and over to all be made up.

I’ve read the New Testament several times and do not know what you’re referring to.

https://ehrmanblog.org/contradictions-in-the-gospels/

https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/

https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/shredding-the-gospels-contradictions-errors-mistakes-fictions

-DP

I’m not sure which resonates with you, but it’s a challenge to respond to this. These websites contain a range of critiques extending to stuff like that the author of Mark “does not like Peter.” Others strike me as underwhelming to the point of corroborating the core Christian thesis; for example, one of the more tangible examples is that both Matthew and Mark recount the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus but differ as to whether the girl died just before or just after Jesus’s help was requested. Apparently undisputed is the notion that Jesus raised her from the dead. If you had a court case where two claimed eye witnesses both claimed to have seen the same shooting and both identified the same shooter, most people probably wouldn’t disregard their testimony because they differed on the make of the gun. As a matter of fact, if their testimony were verbatim the same, *that* might be reason to suspect they coordinated on it.

Thanks for agreeing to the PP's point, which was that the accounts were different. No one disregarded any specific testimony. Appreciate your explicit validation.

[Anonymous]

right, and he walked on water and turned water into wine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Why would a Christian *contemporary* source be suspect? I agree that a much later Christian source could be, but if you’re debating whether a proposition is true, the notion that contemporaries believed it tends to corroborate—not refute—the strength of the case in much the same way that a person who takes up CrossFit on the logic that CrossFit is healthy provides some evidence that CrossFit actually is healthy.

Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth. Also, what did those contemporary Christians believe exactly? The story of Jesus that you think of today is not how many early Christians thought of it. In fact, there wasn't one cohesive narrative among all the sects. And in many ways, there never has been (witness Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc).

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Cite your Christian sources and their validity.

I say this good-naturedly, but this is quite jumbled. To refute my assertion about contemporaries of Christ, you’ve suggested that there were differing views among the “sects,” which you seem to think include Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The Protestant Reformation would not occur for another millennium and a half.

As for your claim that “Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth,” this is kind of circular reasoning. You’re no doubt right that Christians (like all people) have an interest in having their claims believed. But it doesn’t follow that they’re lying, and the fact that they are making the claims at all provide some reason to think that some people thought those claims were true. There’s a great line on an old episode of the Simpson where the police chief says something like “how ironic, the cat burglar was caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.” This reminds me of that. When people have an intent to do something (e.g., promote a religion), there’s nothing necessarily weird about them succeeding. Sure, Christians had a pro-Christianity agenda. But that’s what you’d expect if the religion is true!

The reference to the current sects of Christianity was an example, not to make a claim that is has existed since the beginning of the myth system. Most of the other sects that existed at the beginning of Christianity that were not in accord with what was settled in later centuries were either directly purged from history, or allowed to wither away.

Secondly, if you want to make a claim of something, then you best evidence would be non-biased sources. But, again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Your own Christian sources don't even agree with each other. The gospels can't agree on some of the basics of the story of Jesus. Same can be said of the epistles. Acts has been shown over and over to all be made up.

I’ve read the New Testament several times and do not know what you’re referring to.

https://ehrmanblog.org/contradictions-in-the-gospels/

https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/

https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/shredding-the-gospels-contradictions-errors-mistakes-fictions

-DP

I’m not sure which resonates with you, but it’s a challenge to respond to this. These websites contain a range of critiques extending to stuff like that the author of Mark “does not like Peter.” Others strike me as underwhelming to the point of corroborating the core Christian thesis; for example, one of the more tangible examples is that both Matthew and Mark recount the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus but differ as to whether the girl died just before or just after Jesus’s help was requested. Apparently undisputed is the notion that Jesus raised her from the dead. If you had a court case where two claimed eye witnesses both claimed to have seen the same shooting and both identified the same shooter, most people probably wouldn’t disregard their testimony because they differed on the make of the gun. As a matter of fact, if their testimony were verbatim the same, *that* might be reason to suspect they coordinated on it.

I'm glad you used this analogy. Let's correct it and expand on it to make it more accurate.

Taylor Swift is tried illegally by the state and is executed. Her followers believe she didn't die and there are rumors that she spends at least a month going around singing songs to her entourage and other fans. She then disappears.

Yet, NO ONE - her fans, critics, the authorities, or the general population - document a single thing about her, her life or any aspect of such a fantastic tale.

Approximately 35 years later, someone comes forward with a written compilation about her life. The person does not reveal who they are, does not reveal their sources, or how they gathered the information contained in their story. The author makes no claim they were an actual eye witness to any of her shows or the events that transpired. Given the elapsed timeline and lack of corroborating evidence, there is no way to verify any of the story.

Another 10-15 years go by, and a new story appears. This one shares 90% of the same exact material as the first one. It too is anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation.

Yet another 5-10 years go by, and another version appears. Again, its anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation. This version is about 65% the same as the first story, and about 25% the same as the second.

Finally, another 5-10 years go by. Another anonymous, uncorroborated story appears. This one though only shares about 10% of material from the previous ones and is wildly different in style. The author(s) seem as if they were high when writing portions of the story.

Almost 300 years later, the fans have organized themselves into a community of supporters. They compile all these stories into one book (having rejected other stories they think don't align with their narrative). They will present this as undeniable truth about her life and say it is 100% accurate (disregarding discrepancies in the individual stories). They seek out any new information to help prove the authenticity of the stories, but find nothing.

Millennia later, Swiftologists notice an odd quirk. There are rumors of a previous artist who was also rumored to have died but still be alive and witnessed by fans, long after his death. However, Swifties deny that Elvis is anything like her and that Elvis wasn't real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Why would a Christian *contemporary* source be suspect? I agree that a much later Christian source could be, but if you’re debating whether a proposition is true, the notion that contemporaries believed it tends to corroborate—not refute—the strength of the case in much the same way that a person who takes up CrossFit on the logic that CrossFit is healthy provides some evidence that CrossFit actually is healthy.

Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth. Also, what did those contemporary Christians believe exactly? The story of Jesus that you think of today is not how many early Christians thought of it. In fact, there wasn't one cohesive narrative among all the sects. And in many ways, there never has been (witness Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc).

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Cite your Christian sources and their validity.

I say this good-naturedly, but this is quite jumbled. To refute my assertion about contemporaries of Christ, you’ve suggested that there were differing views among the “sects,” which you seem to think include Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The Protestant Reformation would not occur for another millennium and a half.

As for your claim that “Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth,” this is kind of circular reasoning. You’re no doubt right that Christians (like all people) have an interest in having their claims believed. But it doesn’t follow that they’re lying, and the fact that they are making the claims at all provide some reason to think that some people thought those claims were true. There’s a great line on an old episode of the Simpson where the police chief says something like “how ironic, the cat burglar was caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.” This reminds me of that. When people have an intent to do something (e.g., promote a religion), there’s nothing necessarily weird about them succeeding. Sure, Christians had a pro-Christianity agenda. But that’s what you’d expect if the religion is true!

The reference to the current sects of Christianity was an example, not to make a claim that is has existed since the beginning of the myth system. Most of the other sects that existed at the beginning of Christianity that were not in accord with what was settled in later centuries were either directly purged from history, or allowed to wither away.

Secondly, if you want to make a claim of something, then you best evidence would be non-biased sources. But, again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Your own Christian sources don't even agree with each other. The gospels can't agree on some of the basics of the story of Jesus. Same can be said of the epistles. Acts has been shown over and over to all be made up.

I’ve read the New Testament several times and do not know what you’re referring to.

https://ehrmanblog.org/contradictions-in-the-gospels/

https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/

https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/shredding-the-gospels-contradictions-errors-mistakes-fictions

-DP

I’m not sure which resonates with you, but it’s a challenge to respond to this. These websites contain a range of critiques extending to stuff like that the author of Mark “does not like Peter.” Others strike me as underwhelming to the point of corroborating the core Christian thesis; for example, one of the more tangible examples is that both Matthew and Mark recount the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus but differ as to whether the girl died just before or just after Jesus’s help was requested. Apparently undisputed is the notion that Jesus raised her from the dead. If you had a court case where two claimed eye witnesses both claimed to have seen the same shooting and both identified the same shooter, most people probably wouldn’t disregard their testimony because they differed on the make of the gun. As a matter of fact, if their testimony were verbatim the same, *that* might be reason to suspect they coordinated on it.

I'm glad you used this analogy. Let's correct it and expand on it to make it more accurate.

Taylor Swift is tried illegally by the state and is executed. Her followers believe she didn't die and there are rumors that she spends at least a month going around singing songs to her entourage and other fans. She then disappears.

Yet, NO ONE - her fans, critics, the authorities, or the general population - document a single thing about her, her life or any aspect of such a fantastic tale.

Approximately 35 years later, someone comes forward with a written compilation about her life. The person does not reveal who they are, does not reveal their sources, or how they gathered the information contained in their story. The author makes no claim they were an actual eye witness to any of her shows or the events that transpired. Given the elapsed timeline and lack of corroborating evidence, there is no way to verify any of the story.

Another 10-15 years go by, and a new story appears. This one shares 90% of the same exact material as the first one. It too is anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation.

Yet another 5-10 years go by, and another version appears. Again, its anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation. This version is about 65% the same as the first story, and about 25% the same as the second.

Finally, another 5-10 years go by. Another anonymous, uncorroborated story appears. This one though only shares about 10% of material from the previous ones and is wildly different in style. The author(s) seem as if they were high when writing portions of the story.

Almost 300 years later, the fans have organized themselves into a community of supporters. They compile all these stories into one book (having rejected other stories they think don't align with their narrative). They will present this as undeniable truth about her life and say it is 100% accurate (disregarding discrepancies in the individual stories). They seek out any new information to help prove the authenticity of the stories, but find nothing.

Millennia later, Swiftologists notice an odd quirk. There are rumors of a previous artist who was also rumored to have died but still be alive and witnessed by fans, long after his death. However, Swifties deny that Elvis is anything like her and that Elvis wasn't real.

Before 35 years though a guy comes along and says he met the resurrected Taylor Swift, and he decides to interpret and expand upon her teachings and he goes around creating churches and indeed a whole religion around the departed one. Kinda like what Joseph Smith did with the LDS church or L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology. These religions are all deemed perfectly legitimate today don't forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism.

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead.

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time.

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today.

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm).

Why would a Christian *contemporary* source be suspect? I agree that a much later Christian source could be, but if you’re debating whether a proposition is true, the notion that contemporaries believed it tends to corroborate—not refute—the strength of the case in much the same way that a person who takes up CrossFit on the logic that CrossFit is healthy provides some evidence that CrossFit actually is healthy.

Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth. Also, what did those contemporary Christians believe exactly? The story of Jesus that you think of today is not how many early Christians thought of it. In fact, there wasn't one cohesive narrative among all the sects. And in many ways, there never has been (witness Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc).

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Cite your Christian sources and their validity.

I say this good-naturedly, but this is quite jumbled. To refute my assertion about contemporaries of Christ, you’ve suggested that there were differing views among the “sects,” which you seem to think include Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The Protestant Reformation would not occur for another millennium and a half.

As for your claim that “Christians had a self serving interest in perpetuating their myth,” this is kind of circular reasoning. You’re no doubt right that Christians (like all people) have an interest in having their claims believed. But it doesn’t follow that they’re lying, and the fact that they are making the claims at all provide some reason to think that some people thought those claims were true. There’s a great line on an old episode of the Simpson where the police chief says something like “how ironic, the cat burglar was caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.” This reminds me of that. When people have an intent to do something (e.g., promote a religion), there’s nothing necessarily weird about them succeeding. Sure, Christians had a pro-Christianity agenda. But that’s what you’d expect if the religion is true!

The reference to the current sects of Christianity was an example, not to make a claim that is has existed since the beginning of the myth system. Most of the other sects that existed at the beginning of Christianity that were not in accord with what was settled in later centuries were either directly purged from history, or allowed to wither away.

Secondly, if you want to make a claim of something, then you best evidence would be non-biased sources. But, again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Your own Christian sources don't even agree with each other. The gospels can't agree on some of the basics of the story of Jesus. Same can be said of the epistles. Acts has been shown over and over to all be made up.

I’ve read the New Testament several times and do not know what you’re referring to.

https://ehrmanblog.org/contradictions-in-the-gospels/

https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/

https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/shredding-the-gospels-contradictions-errors-mistakes-fictions

-DP

I’m not sure which resonates with you, but it’s a challenge to respond to this. These websites contain a range of critiques extending to stuff like that the author of Mark “does not like Peter.” Others strike me as underwhelming to the point of corroborating the core Christian thesis; for example, one of the more tangible examples is that both Matthew and Mark recount the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus but differ as to whether the girl died just before or just after Jesus’s help was requested. Apparently undisputed is the notion that Jesus raised her from the dead. If you had a court case where two claimed eye witnesses both claimed to have seen the same shooting and both identified the same shooter, most people probably wouldn’t disregard their testimony because they differed on the make of the gun. As a matter of fact, if their testimony were verbatim the same, *that* might be reason to suspect they coordinated on it.

I'm glad you used this analogy. Let's correct it and expand on it to make it more accurate.

Taylor Swift is tried illegally by the state and is executed. Her followers believe she didn't die and there are rumors that she spends at least a month going around singing songs to her entourage and other fans. She then disappears.

Yet, NO ONE - her fans, critics, the authorities, or the general population - document a single thing about her, her life or any aspect of such a fantastic tale.

Approximately 35 years later, someone comes forward with a written compilation about her life. The person does not reveal who they are, does not reveal their sources, or how they gathered the information contained in their story. The author makes no claim they were an actual eye witness to any of her shows or the events that transpired. Given the elapsed timeline and lack of corroborating evidence, there is no way to verify any of the story.

Another 10-15 years go by, and a new story appears. This one shares 90% of the same exact material as the first one. It too is anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation.

Yet another 5-10 years go by, and another version appears. Again, its anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation. This version is about 65% the same as the first story, and about 25% the same as the second.

Finally, another 5-10 years go by. Another anonymous, uncorroborated story appears. This one though only shares about 10% of material from the previous ones and is wildly different in style. The author(s) seem as if they were high when writing portions of the story.

Almost 300 years later, the fans have organized themselves into a community of supporters. They compile all these stories into one book (having rejected other stories they think don't align with their narrative). They will present this as undeniable truth about her life and say it is 100% accurate (disregarding discrepancies in the individual stories). They seek out any new information to help prove the authenticity of the stories, but find nothing.

Millennia later, Swiftologists notice an odd quirk. There are rumors of a previous artist who was also rumored to have died but still be alive and witnessed by fans, long after his death. However, Swifties deny that Elvis is anything like her and that Elvis wasn't real.

Thus, thus is th reason you can't trust Christian sources.