If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[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:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

There are tons of holocaust survivors whose accounts nobody refutes despite a lack of papers. GTFO.

[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:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

There are tons of holocaust survivors whose accounts nobody refutes despite a lack of papers. GTFO.

There’s a myriad of evidence of the Holocaust, including contemporaneous photos and movies. There are still survivors. The camps are still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

Seeking an independent, contemporaneous report is hardly “capricious” or “arbitrary”.

It is. Any contemporaneous or independent account would also be questionable since there is no way to validate it. So, even if we provide one, you would reject it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

Seeking an independent, contemporaneous report is hardly “capricious” or “arbitrary”.

It is. Any contemporaneous or independent account would also be questionable since there is no way to validate it. So, even if we provide one, you would reject it.

Maybe you don’t understand what capricious or arbitrary mean?

Having an independent, contemporaneous account is pretty standard. Other historical accounts have that. They legitimize actual events vs folklore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

Right. I think we all agreed that it was “very probable” that he existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

people are allowed to doubt whomever they want to. For instance, I doubt that you have any standing to doubt anyone.

People are allowed to be flat earthers or believe that 297 years in the early middle ages didn't really happen. People believe both those things.

The rest of us are allowed to call those people cranks and Jesus mythicists are pretty close to those groups.

We will be sure to let them know your thoughts if any join this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

The Catholic Church makes a lot of claims, many of which are unprovable.