Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

lots of indirect information, research, and evidence that drives their interpretation.

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:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

None of that is independent, eyewitness reports. Nor archaeological artifacts. Those are interpretations of indirect evidence.

And much of it has been translated over the centuries. So open to more interpretations.

And you can’t translate one word of it. Those who can translate the documents, say the evidence is clear.

Their interpretation of indirect evidence.

None have claimed to have independent, eyewitness reports or archeological artifacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

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:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

None of that is independent, eyewitness reports. Nor archaeological artifacts. Those are interpretations of indirect evidence.

And much of it has been translated over the centuries. So open to more interpretations.

And you can’t translate one word of it. Those who can translate the documents, say the evidence is clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

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:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

None of that is independent, eyewitness reports. Nor archaeological artifacts. Those are interpretations of indirect evidence.

And much of it has been translated over the centuries. So open to more interpretations.

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:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

More supporting, indirect evidence. Certainly not independent, eyewitness accounts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

We have primary sources of Jesus’ resurrection.

Writing a little earlier, three leaders of the early church named Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, mention Jesus’ resurrection. Two of them, Clement and Polycarp, probably knew the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. Clement of Rome and Polycarp are probably repeating some of the information they had heard from Peter and John. Though Ignatius is fairly early and was a friend of Polycarp, there is no evidence suggesting he had met one of the apostles. Although it is possible he did , historians must primarily concern themselves with matters that are probable. Since it is probable that Clement and Polycarp heard about Jesus’ resurrection from Peter and John, they are primary sources related to that event. Although they mention Jesus’ resurrection on a few occasions, they do not provide any details.

https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/06/03/primary-sources-jesuss-resurrection/

Going back a little earlier, it is possible the Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions Jesus’ resurrection, or more likely reports the apostles claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead. But certainty eludes us, since a Christian in the second century altered one of the two texts in which Josephus mentions Jesus so that Josephus would appear to have spoken about Jesus in laudatory terms in one of them — the one mentioning Jesus’ death and resurrection. But an early church father named Origen informs us Josephus was not a Christian. If Origen is correct, it is very unlikely that Josephus would have made such remarks as calling Jesus a “wise man, if one could even call him a man,” “he was the Messiah,” and that he rose from the dead “as the divine prophets foretold with ten thousand other wonderful things about him” (Antiquities 18:63). As a result, we are unable to decipher whether Josephus mentioned Jesus’ resurrection in his original text.

Who ever said we didn’t have primary sources for the historicity of Jesus? We do.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/

Primary Sources of Information on Jesus

The primary sources for Jesus' life and teaching are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (see articles on the individual books, e.g., Matthew, Gospel according to), though these are not biographies but theologically framed accounts of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, i.e., of the basic subject matter of Christian preaching and teaching. Other books of the New Testament add few further details.

Among non-Christian writers of antiquity, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger refer to Jesus, as does Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias) in at least one passage.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

Evidence from Tacitus

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5]

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans! [24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

Anonymous wrote:Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived the first part of his life in Palestine before AD 70, is quoted in his “Jewish Antiquities” as referring to Jesus. Josephus describes him as a miracle worker who appeared to his disciples after his death.

The text as it stands is so positive that scholars suggest that it may have been tampered with by a later Christian scribe. Yet many experts, including Jewish historians such as Shlomo Pines and Louis Feldman, judge that a simpler reference to Jesus by Josephus does lie behind the present text.

In the early 2nd Century, the pagan historian Tacitus mentions in his “Annals” that “Christ, the founder of the Christian movement,” was executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea.

Later rabbinical literature also contains a few scattered references to “Yeshu,” or “Yeshua"(Jesus)--though these texts were written centuries after the time of Jesus.

An important point to notice is that while Tacitus, the pagan satirist Lucian (2nd Century), and later rabbis are for the most part negative in their references to Jesus, none denies his existence.

Yet the fact is that various types of Christian documents, each presenting a somewhat different view of Jesus, were produced within 40 years of the supposed date of his death. This does seem to argue for the existence of the person being interpreted in such different ways so early on.

In the last century a radical Dutch school tried to question the early dating of Paul’s Epistles--but no serious scholar today would deny that Paul’s authentic letters come from the ‘50s of the 1st Century.

Interestingly, Paul, writing about 25 years after Jesus’ death, mentions James, “the brother of the Lord,” as well as other brothers of Jesus with whom Paul was not on the best of terms.

James, in particular, seems to have provoked a good deal of infighting among the early Christians, and to have owed his prominence, at least in part, to his family relationship to Jesus. The existence of prominent relatives of Jesus argues well for the existence of Jesus himself.

There is archeological confirmation of the existence of Pontius Pilate, discovered in 1961. It consisted of a fragmentary inscription on a piece of stone found on the Israeli coast.

The inscription reported that Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, dedicated a building to the Emperor Tiberius. When one considers that Pilate was the most powerful Roman figure in Palestine during the adult life of Jesus, it is amazing that we have no other archeological evidence of him.

This is all good supporting, indirect evidence that he most likely lived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.