Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus.  You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because [b]an expert[/b] or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).
[/quote]

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof". 
[/quote]

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture. [/quote]

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

[b]This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.[/b] [/quote]

Correct, except I would not use the terminology "real".  And the fact that Tacitus and Josephus referenced Jesus could mean that they was given false information, which they then wrote about.[/quote]

Historians don’t discard sources unless there’s evidence of error, bias, or implausibility—not just epistemic possibility.

Tacitus had no incentive to repeat Christian propaganda, and every incentive to verify Roman administrative facts. Saying he was “misinformed” requires assuming elite Roman historians casually repeated rumors about executions without checking records—which is implausible.

Tacitus is: hostile to Christians, writing for Roman elites, and known for contempt of superstition.

Tacitus names:
-Execution
-Roman authority
-Pontius Pilate
 And Roman governors kept execution records.

Even if you remove all Christian interpolations, Josephus still refers to “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ,” which presupposes Jesus as a known figure, not a theological abstraction.

Josephus wasn’t writing theology
1. He was explaining who James was
2. “Jesus called Christ” functions as an identifier, not an argument.

That’s it.

Misinformation here would require:
A widespread, accepted false figure known well enough to serve as a reference point, yet is entirely fictional.

If both Tacitus and Josephus were wrong, you need to explain how the false information became stable, specific, and geographically widespread within decades—without originating from a real person.

If we treat all second-hand ancient references as potentially false without positive disconfirmation, then we lose most of ancient history.

The real question is why do you think arguing the issue here is important? Do you think it’s going to change the professional historian, scholar, professor consensus?  It will not. It has zero relevance to the subject of the historicity of Jesus Christ. This discussion has no meaning in that arena, and that’s the only arena that it counts.

If this is your private hobby and something you enjoy discussing, great. That’s really the only value this discussion has for you or anyone else.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics