How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Disciple, think logically, now.

If a person really went around turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 from a few fish and loaves of bread, raising a rotting corpse to life (!), changing his body to able to shine like the Sun during a visit from apparitions, rose from the dead after rotting in a tomb for 3 days (!) and ascended bodily into the sky (!)

The hypothesis is that these miracles were performed based on the existence of a Supreme (4 omni's) being...and if such a being exists, then turning water into wine, raising from the dead, feeding the multitude, etc...those things would hardly be a difficult feat if such a being actually existed. Now, get an ordinary human being and tell him/her to perform those feats, now that would be a feat!!!

Second, I find it utterly amazing that people point out those things that you pointed out and act as if those things are soooooo incredibly surreal...now it is true, believers believe those things...but what does naturalists believe? They believe that long ago, inanimate (non-living) matter...suddenly.....CAME TO LIFE...it was non-living, and it suddenly came to life....and began TALKING...THINKING...HAVING SEX...etc.......non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE??? And began talking and thinking??

How is that any more mesmerizing and/or absurd than the notion that an ALL-POWERFUL being...being able to turn water into wine??? You want to point out the things that believers believe...what about what you have to believe if you negate the existence of a Supreme Being?

, this person would not only be the biggest sensation in the ancient world but the biggest sensation in all of human history!

He is!! He is Jesus Christ, the founder of the world's biggest religion in the world. He is worshipped, he is prayed to, and his followers (supposedly) base their entire lives on his name...their lives, and also their afterlife. I'd say that person is the "biggest sensation in human history". If that doesn't make you the biggest sensation, then I'd like to know the criteria.

The libraries wouldn't be able to hold all the contemporary writings documenting this amazing, out of the world person's many mind-blowing feats!

Christianity began in small geographical areas in the Empire. Jesus wasn't going on worldwide tours..and he didn't need too, obviously....which would make the spread of Christianity even more remarkable. Mass libraries and contemporary writings were just not needed, and he is STILL the most remarkable man in the history of mankind.

Our very views on science and possibility would be permanently and astonishingly changed forever.

*Singing in Tina Turner's vioce* "What science got to do, got to do with it?"

No one would be able to refute this person's accomplishments and we'd have all the evidence needed to accept this person as the true Lord and Savior.

Based on over the 1 billion Christians in the world...I'd say that most people in the world DO accept this person as the true Lord and Savior.

There would be no atheists and the other religions would probably collapse under the weight of so much evidence for the truth of Christianity's claims.

I don't think that would be necessarily true.

Instead...

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not one word can be proven to have been written about this person during his lifetime. All the writings about him come decades or even over a century after all this is supposed to have occurred.

Yeah, decades...and these "decades" were still during the lifetime of the original disciples.

We have no idea what this person looked like. There's not one drawing or portrait of him. We have no writings from this person, and he was supposedly literate. Why would the son of God not write anything down for posterity?

No idea what he looked like? We don't know what King Tut looked like either...the golden mask (the one that I am rockin) looks very different from the mummy :yes:

Doesn't this bother you at all?

Not at all...especially since I can provide solid refutations of any critique that you can give me...and I can also build a case in my favor as well. So no, no worries.

Thinking all this clearly out over a few years helped to wreck my faith, for sure. None of it adds up at all.

It wrecked your faith? Really? Have you ever sought out any answers to your so called "objections", or did once the going got tough, you got going?

So we have two choices here, logically:

He existed but was just one of many preachers and possible messiah claimants and said and did nothing of importance to cause him to be noticed by many during his lifetime.

This is a complete failure of historical inquiry.

Or...

He never existed in the first place and the story was completely made up and possibly based on several different figures and combined into a composite with mythology thrown in.

Either way, the claims of Christianity collapse and all we're left with is a story that can entertain and inspire, but nothing more.

Or, Jesus of Nazareth was/is God incarnate, sent to die for the sins of mankind. That is an option, too...an option that over 1 billion people have accepted as a living reality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sorry, I'm talking about REAL history, not pseudo-historical apologetics crap you learn in Sunday school. Seems that you're on a mission to be wrong about everything.

Ohhh, so historical claims involving miracles are immediately rejected, huh? So is the logic something like "If a historical claim contains a miracle account, it cannot be historical?"

Is that the illogic being thrown around here?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's no evidence for dead, rotting corpses coming back to life, among many other things, so I'm going to go with that it didn't happen.

There is also no evidence that life can come from nonlife, either...but that doesn't stop naturalists from believing that, does it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Call of the Wild, I'm not a "naturalist" or an atheist, so I don't understand why you brought that up.

Also, the reason why Christianity spread is largely due to imperialism, colonialism and cultural genocide. All those peoples of the globe didn't just decide to throw away their native ways and convert to Christianity just because they wanted to. It's the same story with the spread of Islam. Christianity and Islam are imperialist religions that spread themselves through force and use lies and rhetoric to sustain themselves. If Christianity never became the imperial religion of the Roman Empire and started persecuting all other religions out of existence (or assimilating them into itself and driving the rest underground, some cases), it probably would've ended up dying out or remaining a small minority religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ohhh, so historical claims involving miracles are immediately rejected, huh? So is the logic something like "If a historical claim contains a miracle account, it cannot be historical?"

Is that the illogic being thrown around here?

The Bible isn't a history book.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Jesus's 37 miracles are pretty good credentials and proof that he was something special..

"..Even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles,
that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38)

Bringing little girl back to life
Bringing widows son back to life
Bringing Lazarus back to life
Stilling the storm
Feeding 4000
Walking on sea
Feeding 5000
Coin in fishes mouth
Withering fig tree
Big catch of fish
Water into wine
Another big fish catch
Healing leper
Healing Centurions servant
Healing Peters mother-in-law
Healing sick at evening
Healing paralysed man
Healing haemorraging woman
Healing two blind men
Healing mans withered hand
Healing Canaanite womans daughter
Healing boy with seizures
Healing blind man
Healing deaf and dumb man
Healing another blind man
Healing crippled woman
Healing man with dropsy
Healing 10 lepers
Restoring a cut-off ear
Healing noblemans sons fever
Healing crippled man at Bethesda
Healing a born-blind man
Casting out demons into pigs
Curing a mute lunatic
Casting out dirty spirit
Curing a possessed blind-dumb man
Appeared to his followers after his death

Miracles of Jesus Christ

 

[outhouse]

Jesus's 37 miracles are

Mythology according to all credible historians, and is has ZERO credibility.


You debating in an area you know nothing about.


biblical jesus Is factually not historical jesus.



We have a same faith section in the forum if you to play with apologetics

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call of the Wild, I'm not a "naturalist" or an atheist, so I don't understand why you brought that up.

Cool. I still don't understand why miracles are such a difficult concept to grasp, considering they are based on a "prior" belief that a Supreme Being exists.

Also, the reason why Christianity spread is largely due to imperialism, colonialism and cultural genocide. All those peoples of the globe didn't just decide to throw away their native ways and convert to Christianity just because they wanted to. It's the same story with the spread of Islam. Christianity and Islam are imperialist religions that spread themselves through force and use lies and rhetoric to sustain themselves. If Christianity never became the imperial religion of the Roman Empire and started persecuting all other religions out of existence (or assimilating them into itself and driving the rest underground, some cases), it probably would've ended up dying out or remaining a small minority religion.

Saint, we are talking a few hundred years before Constantine, bro. Christianity was already spread like a plague by the time he came into power.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Cool. I still don't understand why miracles are such a difficult concept to grasp, considering they are based on a "prior" belief that a Supreme Being exists.

It's not. But when you're making a historical claim, you need to provide evidence for the historicity of it.

Saint, we are talking a few hundred years before Constantine, bro. Christianity was already spread like a plague by the time he came into power.

No, it hadn't. It was a small minority religion and had a bad rep with most people in the Empire.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mythology according to all credible historians, and is has ZERO credibility.


You debating in an area you know nothing about.


biblical jesus Is factually not historical jesus.



We have a same faith section in the forum if you to play with apologetics

Am I the only one having trouble NOT picturing outhouse, idav, and Mest as sort of a 3-headed monster??? hahahaha

 

[outhouse]

Saint, we are talking a few hundred years before Constantine, bro. Christianity was already spread like a plague by the time he came into power.

Agreed. he is way off base here.


It spread because monotheism was becoming the natural choice over polytheism and worshipping a corrupt politician as "son of god"

 

[Shad]

The hypothesis is that these miracles were performed based on the existence of a Supreme (4 omni's) being...and if such a being exists, then turning water into wine, raising from the dead, feeding the multitude, etc...those things would hardly be a difficult feat if such a being actually existed. Now, get an ordinary human being and tell him/her to perform those feats, now that would be a feat!!!

Speculation based on unproven idea in order to prove another idea. This begging the question in which you assume an unproven premise is true in order to prove a conclusion is true.

Second, I find it utterly amazing that people point out those things that you pointed out and act as if those things are soooooo incredibly surreal...now it is true, believers believe those things...but what does naturalists believe? They believe that long ago, inanimate (non-living) matter...suddenly.....CAME TO LIFE...it was non-living, and it suddenly came to life....and began TALKING...THINKING...HAVING SEX...etc.......non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE??? And began talking and thinking??

Argument from incredibility. Just because something does not seem possible to you is not grounds to dismiss it. There are always people who take this stance. Flight was impossible now it is possible. Space-flight was impossible now it is. Etc.

How is that any more mesmerizing and/or absurd than the notion that an ALL-POWERFUL being...being able to turn water into wine??? You want to point out the things that believers believe...what about what you have to believe if you negate the existence of a Supreme Being?

God answers require far more explanations. How does God violate physics? What method is used? Saying God can just do it is the equivalent to say "because"

He is!! He is Jesus Christ, the founder of the world's biggest religion in the world. He is worshipped, he is prayed to, and his followers (supposedly) base their entire lives on his name...their lives, and also their afterlife. I'd say that person is the "biggest sensation in human history". If that doesn't make you the biggest sensation, then I'd like to know the criteria.

Ad populum fallacy. Numbers and/or size do not prove an idea is true.

Christianity began in small geographical areas in the Empire. Jesus wasn't going on worldwide tours..and he didn't need too, obviously....which would make the spread of Christianity even more remarkable. Mass libraries and contemporary writings were just not needed, and he is STILL the most remarkable man in the history of mankind.

His followers and those after did the work. Jesus rambled a few words and died. If his followers didn't spread what he said he would just be another nobody in the mass of nobodies in history.

Based on over the 1 billion Christians in the world...I'd say that most people in the world DO accept this person as the true Lord and Savior.

Ad populum fallacy again. They could be all wrong.

Yeah, decades...and these "decades" were still during the lifetime of the original disciples.

None of the Gospel were written by their name sakes. This is established in the earliest Gospel of Mark since it uses High-Greek poetry. Only 60% or so of Paul's letters were written by him.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Agreed. he is way off base here.


It spread because monotheism was becoming the natural choice over polytheism and worshipping a corrupt politician as "son of god"

That's a bunch of crap and another distortion of history by Christians. If monotheism was so popular among the people, they wouldn't have needed to persecute the Hellenes for centuries.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's not. But when you're making a historical claim, you need to provide evidence for the historicity of it.

I did.

No, it hadn't. It was a small minority religion and had a bad rep with most people in the Empire.

Emperor Nero was persecuting Christians in the 60's AD...which was almost 3 centuries before Constantine made Rome a Christian nation (God bless him). The spread of Christianity is early stuff, man.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I did.

If you did, I must've missed it.

Emperor Nero was persecuting Christians in the 60's AD...which was almost 3 centuries before Constantine made Rome a Christian nation (God bless him). The spread of Christianity is early stuff, man.

That's a fable that Christians made up long after it supposedly happened.

Constantine was a thug and a tyrant. May his name be damned.

 

[outhouse]

That's a bunch of crap and another distortion of history by Christians..

they do not dictate history


no religion does.


This religion did not start out political, it factually started out anti political and stayed that way for 300 years

 

[outhouse]

That's a fable that Christians made up long after it supposedly happened.

.

provide credible sources.

because your opinion carries none.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Emperor Nero was persecuting Christians in the 60's AD ....

That's a fable that Christians made up long after it supposedly happened.

And just when you begin to think that the rerun could not possibly be sillier than its vapid predecessor …

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..biblical jesus Is factually not historical jesus..

Well done mate, it's 45 minutes to midnight here and I was beginning to think you and your atheist chums had run out of consp-theories for today..

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

they do not dictate history


no religion does.

Western civilization since the fall of Classical Antiquity is steeped in the Christian worldview. The Church's view of history is engrained in our psyches and we often take this for granted. You are not being realistic if you fail to see this.

This religion did not start out political, it factually started out anti political and stayed that way for 300 years

What does that have to with the number of Christians in the pre-Constantine Empire?

provide credible sources.

because your opinion carries none.

I'll let Candida Moss, who is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame (since you're so ******* obsessed with what you define as "credibility"), explain it:

PROBLEMS WITH THE MYTH OF NERO
PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS FOR BURNING ROME

CANDIDA: There are a number of problems with the Nero myth. One problem is that it makes no sense for Nero to have claimed that Christians were to blame. That term, Christian, isn’t widely known until the end of the first century, long after Nero’s death.

DAVID: Nero died in 68. The famous claim about Nero and the Christians comes from Tacitus, who was born in 56 and didn’t publish his writing until the end of the first century and the start of the second century. In other words—the Christians hadn’t fully emerged from Judaism as their own widely known religious group until long after Nero.

CANDIDA: The evidence points to this story of Nero scapegoating the Christians as coming from the second century. How could he have scapegoated “Christians,” when they still were known as Jews at that time in Rome? It is clear that Roman sources condemned Nero for the fire and Nero did try to scapegoat others, but it just doesn’t make sense that he specifically named “Christians.”

DAVID: That’s just one famous story of persecution, though. The “Age of Martyrs” and the whole idea of widespread Roman persecution refers to a much longer period than Nero. So, tell us more about that era.

CANDIDA: For a time, Christians definitely had a bad reputation as subversives. Their reputation was bad enough that, if they wound up in a Roman courtroom, officials might say something like: “Well, we know already that you’re a Christian and Christians are subversives.” But, Romans certainly weren’t killing Christians on sight and, even in Roman courtrooms if someone wound up facing charges, Roman officials weren’t condemning people just for being Christians. That wasn’t a widespread practice. In fact, we have stories of Roman officials who had individuals come before them and volunteer to die as Christian martyrs—and the Romans actually told them: “No way!”

DAVID: Hollywood movies, novels and a host of other tales certainly give us the impression that Christians faced ghastly deaths at Roman hands for merely being Christian. You say that some Christians were, indeed, put to death. Any way to estimate numbers?

CANDIDA: It’s hard to estimate numbers, but the numbers we have recorded are fairly small. There is almost no evidence from this period before Constantine that is called the Age of Martyrs. What we have are stories that come later from people writing things like Lives of the Saints or stories of individual martyrs. In the second century, we do have a very small number of records of people being executed. In the third century, we do see more Christians dying, but it’s hard to tell how many. The point here is that the claims of huge numbers dying come from much later authors with a purpose for writing the story in that way.

DAVID: In your book, you write: “The reason these Christians invented martyrdom stories and saw their history as a history of persecution is because then, as now, martyrdom was a powerful tool. Early Christians respected saints as holy people with a special connection to God. … In later times, martyrs were powerful spokespersons for the church. When early Christians wanted to prove the antiquity and orthodoxy of their own opinion, they would edit or compose a story attributing their own views to an early Christian orthodox martyr. … Martyrs became mouthpieces for later religious positions.”

CANDIDA: If you died as a martyr, they said it wiped your sins clean. Martyrdom became this ultimate statement of faith. How can you doubt the faith or sincerity of someone who is willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the faith? To this day, we think of people as especially heroic if they die because of their religious convictions.
- See more at: Candida Moss interview on the Christian myth of persecutio