Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

Formally organized beliefs based on historical stories/myths. Beliefs that evolve and change and stories/myths that generally stay the same.

[Anonymous]

Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University stated in 2008: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had created the Jesus Project, which included both mythicists and historicists to investigate the historicity of Jesus, wrote that an adherent to the Christ myth theory asked to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the position. Hoffmann felt that to be committed to mythicism signaled a lack of necessary skepticism and he noted that most members of the project did not reach the mythicist conclusion. Hoffmann also called the mythicist theory "fatally flawed".

Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University, wrote, "What you can't do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The 'Christ-Myth Hypothesis' is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the 'hypothesis' are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong. ... Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity.

According to Daniel Gullotta, most of the mythicist literature contains "wild theories, which are poorly researched, historically inaccurate, and written with a sensationalist bent for popular audiences."

According to James F. McGrath and Christopher Hansen, mythicists sometimes rely on questionable and outdated methods like Rank and Raglan mythotypes that end up resulting in misclassifying real historical persons as mythical figures.

Critics of the Christ myth theory question the competence of its supporters. Maurice Casey has criticized mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes their frequent assumption that modern New Testament scholarship is Christian fundamentalism, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars.

According to Bart Ehrman:

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. ... These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99% of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

“Maurice Casey has criticized mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes their frequent assumption that modern New Testament scholarship is Christian fundamentalism, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars.”

This is absolutely true. New Testament scholars don’t have to be religious, and alot of them aren’t. The New Testament is a historical document that can be studied and used just like any ancient text.

The atheists and anti-theists and hostile to religion, myth-nut-jobs just aren’t people you want to read or believe. They don’t have the education or experience or training or knowledge in the things they are declaring to know all about and make angry comments about.

When someone starts angrily slinging their myth talk about, I know we’ve got a dork, myth posting. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

Formally organized beliefs based on historical stories/myths. Beliefs that evolve and change and stories/myths that generally stay the same.

“Maurice Casey has criticized mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes their frequent assumption that modern New Testament scholarship is Christian fundamentalism, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars.”

Please, continue, myther. We will immediately discard your post, mentally, but you will feel better after spreading your thoughts about to a forum of captive strangers…or something like that.

[Anonymous]

In 2000 Van Voorst gave an overview of proponents of the "Nonexistence Hypothesis" and their arguments, presenting seven arguments against the hypothesis as put forward by "Wells and his predecessors":

"Arguments from silence" are to be rejected, because "it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist". Van Voorst further argued that the early Christian literature was not written for historical purposes

Dating the "invention" of Jesus around 100 AD is too late: the Gospel of Mark is generally considered to have been written around 70 AD.

The "development [of the Gospel traditions] does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence".

Wells could not explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it"

The rejection of Tacitus (Annals) and Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews) ignores the scholarly consensus.

Proponents of the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" are not driven by scholarly interests, but by anti-Christian sentiments.

Wells and others do not offer "other, credible hypotheses" for the origins of Christianity.

In 2003, Van Voorst added an eighth "final argument"—that Wells had since accepted the "historical basis for the existence of Jesus".


Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.

He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".

According to Ehrman, mythicism has a growing appeal "because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion". According to Casey, mythicism has a growing appeal because of an aversion toward Christian fundamentalism among American atheists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

No, I don’t deny they existed. In fact, I said they probably existed. It’s just the nature of ancient history. Without physical evidence, it’s just someone’s interpretation of events. People are fallible.

As that Barbour dude said:
History is not objective; it is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement.

Nobody says probably but you. You aren’t a historian, an academic, or a scholar? What is your educational background and experience to judge the historicity of any person? It really matters. It matters you have evidence to support your probably. Randos who just contribute doubt about the work and research of scholars don’t count at all. You are basically a conspiracy theorist.

Socrates: We don’t have coins minted in his name or other epigraphy testifying to his existence. We have no primary evidence for him. (By primary evidence I mean evidence that is physically contemporary with him.)

NP. Not sure who is replying to who anymore but it’s clear there was someone questioning the validity of non-secular accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion by questioning the historical validity of the accounts. Another post provided similar examples of historical figures widely accepted as true but with less documented evidence than for Jesus.

Again, PPs have no identified themselves but it seems like one PP denies the accuracy of Jesus accounts by questioning who accepts them as valid and another PP supports evidence of other historical figures with an of course they are real without questioning the accounts or who accepts them.

“Faith” means don’t ask questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s consider a few people who never to have their existence or historicity doubted by atheists and other anti-Christian skeptics.

Plato. Unlike Jesus, he wrote some things. None of these works are strictly autobiographical. The best biographical source for Plato comes from Diogenes Laërtius, in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, a work written over five hundred years after Plato’s death. The oldest extant copy of this dates from the late eleventh century.

Julius Caesar. Two of the most important historical documents telling us about his life come from Suetonius and Plutarch, both of which were written more than one hundred years after his death. But the extant copies possessed today are even farther—much farther—removed from Caesar’s death in 44 B.C.

The great Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). Historians get all their information about Alexander beginning in the first century B.C. The most valuable of these is (once again) Plutarch’s Lives. The bulk of our information on Alexander comes from Plutarch. But this work was written in the first century, almost four centuries after Alexander. Thus, the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than 260 years after his death and the most reliable source is more than 370 years removed.

It’s also agreed that the four Gospels were written within one hundred years of Christ’s death. The Gospel of St. Mark is generally dated to within forty years of the Crucifixion, with St. Matthew and St. Luke not long after. The Gospel of St. John is usually dated to around A.D. 100. Several of St. Paul’s letters—even more impressively—are often dated earlier than St. Mark’s gospel; and within these, at least one recorded creed of the early Christians has been traced back to within five years of Christ’s death (see 1 Cor. 15:3-4). The extremely early dating of this creed is incredibly significant because it is, first, recorded well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could correct and critique the creed if necessary (written as a credal formula, it was apparently already a core profession of Christian doctrine), and second, because it provides direct evidence of early belief in the resurrection of Jesus:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . .

In comparison with the other major figures of antiquity, the historical reliability of the New Testament based on the “fact-to-record” criterion—and in comparison to other important historical works of the ancient world—holds up as impressive and well supported. (Nor is the New Testament the only historical evidence of Jesus’ existence—not by a long shot.)

I think that most people, atheist or not, Jesus the man existed. It’s the son of god bit that has some doubters.

Those are two different issues. No one is higher education -college/uni professor, publishing scholar, historian, archeologist, etc, denies the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and they are not all religious people. Many are atheists, agnostic, etc.

Nobody has to believe that Jesus was who he said He was. But people who are atheists, anti-theist, and hostile to religion certainly have invested a great deal of time and effort trying to cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus. And I do agree it makes them look foolish. Why not just say the evidence exists that he existed- but I don’t think He was the Son of God? Why try to cast doubt? I think they just don’t want yo admit Jesus existed, and they think if they keep denying it, some people will not believe the evidence.

Literally no one has denied his existence.

And the whole point is that the “evidence” is weak. Which is understandable given the timeframe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

No, I don’t deny they existed. In fact, I said they probably existed. It’s just the nature of ancient history. Without physical evidence, it’s just someone’s interpretation of events. People are fallible.

As that Barbour dude said:
History is not objective; it is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement.

Nobody says probably but you. You aren’t a historian, an academic, or a scholar? What is your educational background and experience to judge the historicity of any person? It really matters. It matters you have evidence to support your probably. Randos who just contribute doubt about the work and research of scholars don’t count at all. You are basically a conspiracy theorist.

Socrates: We don’t have coins minted in his name or other epigraphy testifying to his existence. We have no primary evidence for him. (By primary evidence I mean evidence that is physically contemporary with him.)

No, that’s not how that works. Concrete evidence removes the “probably”.

Socrates probably lived too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

So what do you call the ancient Norse beliefs? Or Greek? Roman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

So what do you call the ancient Norse beliefs? Or Greek? Roman?

Pp obviously avoided answering that very question when asked in the post he responded to,

Gosh, I wonder why?

Bullfinch and Edith Hamilton would be very interested to hear where the difference is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

This is inaccurate. Myths are stories that (re)tell something important to a culture/group about how something came to be. The Noah's flood story isn't more "religious" than the Greek story about Persephone and Demeter. They're both stories, they're both religious myths.

Because with the knowledge we have in the present, we know that both never happened just as the story told. Seasons occur... floods occur... but there's no supernatural intervention or force. People developed the stories to help explain something they didn't understand at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2000 Van Voorst gave an overview of proponents of the "Nonexistence Hypothesis" and their arguments, presenting seven arguments against the hypothesis as put forward by "Wells and his predecessors":

"Arguments from silence" are to be rejected, because "it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist". Van Voorst further argued that the early Christian literature was not written for historical purposes

Dating the "invention" of Jesus around 100 AD is too late: the Gospel of Mark is generally considered to have been written around 70 AD.

The "development [of the Gospel traditions] does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence".

Wells could not explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it"

The rejection of Tacitus (Annals) and Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews) ignores the scholarly consensus.

Proponents of the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" are not driven by scholarly interests, but by anti-Christian sentiments.

Wells and others do not offer "other, credible hypotheses" for the origins of Christianity.

In 2003, Van Voorst added an eighth "final argument"—that Wells had since accepted the "historical basis for the existence of Jesus".


Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.

He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".

According to Ehrman, mythicism has a growing appeal "because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion". According to Casey, mythicism has a growing appeal because of an aversion toward Christian fundamentalism among American atheists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

What if I grant you that Jesus probably existed? But there is no proof he was the son of God, no proof that he was born of a Virgin, no proof of anything he did on this earth except maybe he lived and maybe he was killed on a cross, maybe with others and maybe by himself. The problem with fundamentalists is they claim proving Jesus’s existence is the end of the story- he lived so everything everyone ever said in the Bible HAD to be true. That doesn’t even work for contemporaneous history let alone things rotten thousands of years ago with incomplete information and years after the fact at that.

What if Jesus lived and died as recorded, but he was a crank like any number of modern cultists but happened to have a very persuasive following and a very appealing message to certain important people who had an interest in consolidating their own power? And his followers just built up the legend more and more and more as people challenged them in the early years? To the point where the carpenter son of a teen mom was suddenly born of a Virgin with the sages rejoicing, the fulfillment of every savior philosophy stretching back years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2000 Van Voorst gave an overview of proponents of the "Nonexistence Hypothesis" and their arguments, presenting seven arguments against the hypothesis as put forward by "Wells and his predecessors":

"Arguments from silence" are to be rejected, because "it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist". Van Voorst further argued that the early Christian literature was not written for historical purposes

Dating the "invention" of Jesus around 100 AD is too late: the Gospel of Mark is generally considered to have been written around 70 AD.

The "development [of the Gospel traditions] does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence".

Wells could not explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it"

The rejection of Tacitus (Annals) and Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews) ignores the scholarly consensus.

Proponents of the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" are not driven by scholarly interests, but by anti-Christian sentiments.

Wells and others do not offer "other, credible hypotheses" for the origins of Christianity.

In 2003, Van Voorst added an eighth "final argument"—that Wells had since accepted the "historical basis for the existence of Jesus".


Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.

He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".

According to Ehrman, mythicism has a growing appeal "because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion". According to Casey, mythicism has a growing appeal because of an aversion toward Christian fundamentalism among American atheists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

What if I grant you that Jesus probably existed? But there is no proof he was the son of God, no proof that he was born of a Virgin, no proof of anything he did on this earth except maybe he lived and maybe he was killed on a cross, maybe with others and maybe by himself. The problem with fundamentalists is they claim proving Jesus’s existence is the end of the story- he lived so everything everyone ever said in the Bible HAD to be true. That doesn’t even work for contemporaneous history let alone things rotten thousands of years ago with incomplete information and years after the fact at that.

What if Jesus lived and died as recorded, but he was a crank like any number of modern cultists but happened to have a very persuasive following and a very appealing message to certain important people who had an interest in consolidating their own power? And his followers just built up the legend more and more and more as people challenged them in the early years? To the point where the carpenter son of a teen mom was suddenly born of a Virgin with the sages rejoicing, the fulfillment of every savior philosophy stretching back years.

Sure sounds plausible to me - a theory better than the Christian belief, because it's based on logic, not faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

So what do you call the ancient Norse beliefs? Or Greek? Roman?

Still waiting on the answer to this. Too difficult to admit that you do call them myths, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

So what do you call the ancient Norse beliefs? Or Greek? Roman?

Still waiting on the answer to this. Too difficult to admit that you do call them myths, huh?

That's my guess. Someday people will use the term "Christian mythology" to describe the centuries-long belief in Christian stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

So what do you call the ancient Norse beliefs? Or Greek? Roman?

ancient belief systems that no longer have adherents (such as classical Greek, Roman, Norse mythology based on a pantheon of gods and goddesses) were abandoned in favor of Christianity 1,000 years ago.

That you don’t know that is telling.

By the Early Middle Ages (800–1000), faiths referred to as pagan had mostly disappeared in the West.