Anonymous
09/06/2022 21:24
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
That’s BS about the gospels not counting as evidence. Not direct evidence, but certainly evidence.
So there isn’t a NY Times interview with Jesus. There’s more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone else at that time. That’s good enough for hundreds of millions of Christians. You can continue to screech about no CNN coverage of the Sermon on the Mount, but Christians aren’t bothered.
Do I have to type it in caps?
YOU CAN'T USE A BOOK TO PROVE WHAT IS IN THE BOOK IS TRUE. THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY AS NOTED ABOVE. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.
By your standard of evidence, the Koran is true, because the book says so and hundred of millions believe it.
So do you believe the Koran is true?
Do you?
No?
Why a different standard then?
Anonymous
09/06/2022 20:58
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:We do know some things about the historical Jesus — less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think,” said Marcus Borg, a preeminent Biblical scholar, author and retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University. “Though a few books have recently argued that Jesus never existed, the evidence that he did is persuasive to the vast majority of scholars, whether Christian or non-Christian.”
https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus-christ-man-physical-evidence-hold.html
Wow -- it's looking more and more like Jesus actually existed, which must come as a great relief to people who worship him
Anonymous
09/06/2022 20:45
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
We do know some things about the historical Jesus — less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think,” said Marcus Borg, a preeminent Biblical scholar, author and retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University. “Though a few books have recently argued that Jesus never existed, the evidence that he did is persuasive to the vast majority of scholars, whether Christian or non-Christian.”
https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus-christ-man-physical-evidence-hold.html
https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus-christ-man-physical-evidence-hold.html
Anonymous
09/06/2022 20:35
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
Anonymous
09/06/2022 20:24
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?
I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.
No evidence.
Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.
I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.
+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.
If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.
That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?
Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.
Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.
Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.
Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples
That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 20:23
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?
I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.
No evidence.
Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.
I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.
That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, the Annals of Tacitus, is from 116 A.D.
+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.
If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.
That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?
Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.
Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.
Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.
Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples
Anonymous
09/06/2022 19:16
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
That’s BS about the gospels not counting as evidence. Not direct evidence, but certainly evidence.
So there isn’t a NY Times interview with Jesus. There’s more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone else at that time. That’s good enough for hundreds of millions of Christians. You can continue to screech about no CNN coverage of the Sermon on the Mount, but Christians aren’t bothered.
Right. They have faith in their story. It doesn’t actually matter to them if it happened IRL or not.
Wrong. Re-read the post. They’re satisfied with the evidence, even if it isn’t direct.
They are willing to accept the word of others - they don’t have any real, unbiased evidence. Even for all of the supernatural aspects.
If they are willing to accept that he rose from the dead, then why would they question any of the basics. LOL.
They have faith in the story. The vast majority have never even considered if there is evidence of any kind. They just “believe”.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 19:08
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
That’s BS about the gospels not counting as evidence. Not direct evidence, but certainly evidence.
So there isn’t a NY Times interview with Jesus. There’s more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone else at that time. That’s good enough for hundreds of millions of Christians. You can continue to screech about no CNN coverage of the Sermon on the Mount, but Christians aren’t bothered.
Right. They have faith in their story. It doesn’t actually matter to them if it happened IRL or not.
Wrong. Re-read the post. They’re satisfied with the evidence, even if it isn’t direct.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 18:58
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
That’s BS about the gospels not counting as evidence. Not direct evidence, but certainly evidence.
So there isn’t a NY Times interview with Jesus. There’s more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone else at that time. That’s good enough for hundreds of millions of Christians. You can continue to screech about no CNN coverage of the Sermon on the Mount, but Christians aren’t bothered.
Right. They have faith in their story. It doesn’t actually matter to them if it happened IRL or not.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 18:51
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
That’s BS about the gospels not counting as evidence. Not direct evidence, but certainly evidence.
So there isn’t a NY Times interview with Jesus. There’s more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone else at that time. That’s good enough for hundreds of millions of Christians. You can continue to screech about no CNN coverage of the Sermon on the Mount, but Christians aren’t bothered.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 18:49
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
DP here. You didn't provide ANY sources. That claim is untrue.
As for your ad hominem of calling PP dishonest, maybe you should review that policy, because it appears to be more of a confession than an accusation.
Borg, Crossan and a Great Courses class.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 18:41
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
DP here. You didn't provide ANY sources. That claim is untrue.
As for your ad hominem of calling PP dishonest, maybe you should review that policy, because it appears to be more of a confession than an accusation.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 18:07
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?
I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.
No evidence.
Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.
I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.
+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.
If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.
That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?
Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.
Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.
Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.
Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples
Anonymous
09/06/2022 17:41
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who wants to deal with atheist toddlers who won’t do any work outside their own little sandboxes? Not me. Outta here. Have fun.
Seems like you’re the one throwing a tantrum here.
That’s ok. We all know you can’t share indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist. No need to beat yourself up over it.
Goalposts moved. You questioned the authenticity of the gospels and pp and I gave you several sources which you announced you won’t read.
If you weren’t so dishonest, we might have interesting discussions on this forum.
You are confusing posters.
It’s clear that you can’t provide indisputable evidence because it doesn’t exist.
No, the Bible/Gospels aren’t themselves indisputable evidence of the stories they contain. Any that reference supernatural events are automatically disqualified as unreliable.
Anonymous
09/06/2022 17:35
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?
I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.
No evidence.
Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.
I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.
+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.
If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.
That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?
Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.
Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.
Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.
A pp quoted Tacitus, whose evidence is considered authentic.
The Annals of Tacitus were written in 116 A.D.