All roads lead to the same God ?

[InChrist]

You can't do it, can you? Why not just man up and admit you can't instead of dodging the request with meaningless questions? I told you if you could quote a secular contemporary source of a witness to the resurrection I'd make a public profession right here of accepting Jesus and not say a word against him again if you could. But you can't, can you. Why? because none exist. Therefore Jesus resurrection remains a legend without any basis in fact outside of anything in the gospels.

There is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, besides the Gospel accounts and from non-Christian sources....

“From the non biblical record of history we can reconstruct the entire life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The majority of these texts speak of Jesus in derogatory or non-complementary terms. None of these texts are seeking to prove the existence of Jesus nor validate Him as a genuine person of history. In fact, by their non complementary and often scathing remarks, these writers of antiquity have preserved for us a substantial and conclusive chronicle of the same events that are a part of the New Testament narrative.

• Historical Evidence That Proves The Resurrection Of Jesus
• Darkness During Jesus Crucifixion, Confirmed by Secular Historians
• Is The New Testament A Valid Historical Narrative?
• Were The Gospels Written By Eyewitnesses?
• Has The Text Of The New Testament Been Changed?
• The Four Gospels Were Not Written Anonymously
• Tacitus as a Credible Witness
• Josephus as a Credible Witness

A majority of what we know about events of antiquity, come to us from sources that wrote about these events after the events took place. Much of the world’s knowledge about history come to us reliably from sources just like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius.

Those who exclude the works of authors who wrote after the events took place, distinguish themselves as unreliable scholars or communicators of true facts. Every reliable scholar uses works from writes who documented events after they took place.

From the following list of secular sources, we can accurately conclude that Jesus is a genuine person of history and that His presence on earth, as described in the pages of the New Testament, are also accurate.

Note: This list now includes 124 Secular citations.

As you read the following, remember that these are not believers in Jesus, nor are they seeking to validate Jesus as a real person. A majority of the following writings by these non-Christian sources, are visibly hostile, even hateful towards Jesus and those who follow Him. This is the entire point: By their adversarial remarks, without being aware, these non-Christian writers have preserved for us, an empirical record from history that Jesus did in fact live, die, and rose from the dead.“

The Record Of Secular History And Jesus

 

[John1.12]

You can't do it, can you? Why not just man up and admit you can't instead of dodging the request with meaningless questions? I told you if you could quote a secular contemporary source of a witness to the resurrection I'd make a public profession right here of accepting Jesus and not say a word against him again if you could. But you can't, can you. Why? because none exist. Therefore Jesus resurrection remains a legend without any basis in fact outside of anything in the gospels.

Because only someone who has never read the accounts ( read the narrative) would ask such a silly question. It was 2000 years ago . What manuscripts do you have for other Ancient historical figures that beats the extent of the accounts of Jesus ?

 

[joelr]

There is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, besides the Gospel accounts and from non-Christian sources....

“From the non biblical record of history we can reconstruct the entire life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The majority of these texts speak of Jesus in derogatory or non-complementary terms. None of these texts are seeking to prove the existence of Jesus nor validate Him as a genuine person of history. In fact, by their non complementary and often scathing remarks, these writers of antiquity have preserved for us a substantial and conclusive chronicle of the same events that are a part of the New Testament narrative.

• Historical Evidence That Proves The Resurrection Of Jesus
• Darkness During Jesus Crucifixion, Confirmed by Secular Historians
• Is The New Testament A Valid Historical Narrative?
• Were The Gospels Written By Eyewitnesses?
• Has The Text Of The New Testament Been Changed?
• The Four Gospels Were Not Written Anonymously
• Tacitus as a Credible Witness
• Josephus as a Credible Witness

A majority of what we know about events of antiquity, come to us from sources that wrote about these events after the events took place. Much of the world’s knowledge about history come to us reliably from sources just like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius.



The Record Of Secular History And Jesus

This source is a Christian author and apologist. There are no historical mentions of Jesus that are not either considered forgery by academia or simply references to a group of people who followed what is said in the gospels. This is not confirmation of anything except that there were Christians.

Here is a biblical historian comments on historical sources that mention Jesus:

“Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not . And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.
“Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”

Actually, he probably didn’t . And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.

“Suetonius mentions Jesus”

No, he doesn’t
“Serapion mentions Jesus”

That’s both disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.
“Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”

Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.
“Lucian mentions Jesus”

Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

“Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”

As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts against historicity.
“Celsus attacks Jesus’s character”

Celsus wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Celsus only used the Gospels as his source. He knew no other sources to check. Therefore, Celsus is not an independent source. Nor could he have known the truth of what really happened over a hundred years before his time. This evidence is useless.

26. “Clement of Rome writes on Jesus’s existence”

Not on earth ). Clement seems only to know of a Jesus as a revelatory being who communicates through visions and having planted hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures. Just like Paul. So Clement’s letter actually counts against historicity.

27. “Ignatius of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Using only Gospels as his source. And nearly a century after the fact. Therefore, useless .

28. “Quadratus of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto .

29. “Aristides the Athenian writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto (ibid.).

30. “Justin Martyr writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto. In fact, now we are a 130 years after the fact. And Justin’s only sources are the Gospels. This is useless.



31. “Hegesippus writes on Jesus existence”

A century and a half too late, in contexts that are patently ridiculous, and wholly unsourced ().


as to the gospels:

“The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John


Modern Christian scholarship has demonstrated that Mark is beyond a doubt the source gospel. All others took his narrative and expanded on it.

 

[joelr]

Because only someone who has never read the accounts ( read the narrative) would ask such a silly question. It was 2000 years ago . What manuscripts do you have for other Ancient historical figures that beats the extent of the accounts of Jesus ?

Let's use Caligula.
"Eighty years after Caligula’s death in 41 A.D., Suetonius wrote a Life of Caligula. In it, he uses, cites, and quotes eyewitness and contemporary documentation. He shows he was reading the correspondence and memoirs of Caligula’s own family, the books and poems of eyewitnesses who knew him, contemporary inscriptions and government documents. He not only tells us about them, and quotes or cites them, but even discusses their relative reliability."

All of the following can be confirmed in peer reviewed monographs about Caligula. I’ll cite popular sources simply because you can access them. But trust me, the same data is well confirmed in the real deal, including: Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography (University of California Press, 2015); Sam Wilkinson, Caligula (Routledge, 2003); and Anthony Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (Yale University Press, 1990).

• We have busts and statues of Caligula carved from life. Indeed, Wikipedia correctly says “Based on scientific reconstructions of his official painted busts, Caligula had brown hair, brown eyes, and fair skin” (source: The Smithsonian). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of coins minted by and naming and depicting Caligula as the extant emperor (numerous examples are also depicted and discussed at Wikipedia; here’s another; and another). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of papyri, actually written during Caligula’s life, mentioning him as the reigning emperor (e.g. as Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus). Because that was how documents were dated (example; example; example). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of contemporary inscriptions, erected by Caligula himself and eyewitnesses to his reign. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.

• We have excavated several of Caligula’s most peculiar ships. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have actual wine barrels from Caligula’s private vineyard, with his name on them. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have his mother’s tombstone, declaring him her child. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• Pliny the Elder, an eyewitness to Caligula, supplies us a great deal of information directly from his own observations, and from government records and other eyewitness and contemporary sources. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• Other eyewitnesses and contemporaries who report on Caligula include Philo of Alexandria and Seneca, who both met with him personally, and record several things about him (e.g. Philo’s Flaccus and On [My] Embassy to Gaius [Caligula]; Seneca’s On Consolation to My Mother Helvia and On Rage and On the Constancy of the Wise).
• 
  
• We have extensive accounts of Caligula in Josephus (a historian born when Caligula reigned, discussing Caligula within only 35 years of his death, and more extensively only 52 years after his death), an account that is exactly in Josephan style and rich with realistic detail (Antiquities of the Jews 18-19, written c. 93 A.D.; and Jewish War 2.184-203, written c. 76 A.D.). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No. Not even the alleged Josephan mentions of Jesus qualify on any relevant point.
• • We know eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Caligula wrote works about him that are lost but that are discussed and used by later writers. These include Seneca’s own friend Fabius Rusticus; Cluvius Rufus, a senator actually involved in the assassination of Caligula (very likely these were the sources employed by Josephus, who even mentions and quotes Cluvius); the memoirs of Claudius (Caligula’s successor); the published correspondence of Augustus; and various poets (e.g. Gaetulicus). Even Caligula’s sister, Nero’s mother, Agrippina the Younger, wrote up her own memoirs that were cited and used as a source for Caligula by several later historians. Do we have anything like any of this for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • We have several later critical historians writing about Caligula who name, cite and quote eyewitness, documentary, and contemporary sources for Caligula: e.g. besides Suetonius (whose example of this I already discussed), also Tacitus, Life of Agricola 10 (written c. 98 A.D.), and Annals 13.20 (written c. 116 A.D.), and even Dio Cassius (not even two hundred years after the fact). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • We even have government documents that do this: for example, we have unearthed a bronze tablet copy (dating c. 168 A.D.) of a letter personally written by Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Journal of Roman Studies 1973.63) that mentions him consulting the extant register of those granted citizenship by Caligula (in a list of such registers from other emperors as well). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • Oh…and we have Caligula him-fracking-self! An inscription recording his own letter, in his own words, to the Achaean League, dated 19 August 37 A.D. (Inscriptiones Graecae 7.2711, ll. 21-43). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • • We also have declarations of alliance and celebration from many localities at the accession to power of Caligula. For example, the Oath declared by the Aritensians, inscribed on stone shortly after 11 May 37 A.D., elaborately asserting they shall ally with Caligula and declare his enemies their enemies; similarly the Cyzicans as well; and the Oath and Decree of Celebration of the Assians of the same year, which says they are sending an embassy “to seek an audience with and congratulate him, and beg him to remember” their city “as he personally promised when together with his father Germanicus he first set foot in our city’s province” (see Lewis & Reinhold, Vol. 2, § 3 and 9). So here we have the eyewitness, original autograph testimony, of an entire city of people. Caligula was with his father at the age of six when he visited their region (so they are trucking rather hard on the utterance of a toddler). But you don’t say this of, or send embassies to, a guy who doesn’t exist. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? Hell to the no.
  For Jesus we have zero outside sources (they only confirm Christians who followed the Gospels) and 4 gospels. All copied from Mark who scholarship demonstrates sourced Psalms, Paul and other fiction to create an earthly narrative for Jesus using highly allegorical, mythical literary devices. The general myths can all be traced to earlier cultures from rising saviors to souls belonging to heaven, messianic prophecies and apoctalyiptic world ending stories with resurrection. It's all Persian/Hellenistic concepts. Nations who just happened to invade Israel when the concepts were being introduced to the OT during the 2nd temple period?

 

[joelr]

So why you couldn't give me any reference?

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia
died 10CE


The saying of Hillel that introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise Pirkei Avot mentions Aaron HaKohen (the high priest) as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love for his fellow man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law (Pirkei Avoth 1:12). In mentioning these characteristics, which the aggadah attributes to Moses' brother, Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

The Golden Rule
The comparative response to the challenge of a prospective convert who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel gently chastised the man, saying: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[19]

Love of peace
The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits—from that proverbial meekness and mildness—as in the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai".[20] Hillel's gentleness and patience are illustrated in an anecdote that describes how two men made a bet on the question of whether Hillel could be made angry. Though they questioned him and made insulting allusions to his Babylonian origin, they were unsuccessful.[20]

Obligations to self and others
From the doctrine of man's likeness to God, Hillel deduced man's duty to care for his own body. According to Midrash Leviticus rabbah he said "As in a theater and circus the statues of the king must be kept clean by him to whom they have been entrusted, so the bathing of the body is a duty of man, who was created in the image of the almighty King of the world." In this work, Hillel calls his soul a guest upon earth, toward which he must fulfill the duties of charity.

In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And being for my own self, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?"[4] The third part contains the admonition to postpone no duty, the same admonition he gave with reference to study: "Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time."[21]

The precept that one should not separate oneself from the community, Hillel paraphrases (referencing Ecclesiastes 3:4) in the following saying: "Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping."[22] Man should not appear different from others in his outward deportment; he should always regard himself as a part of the whole, thereby showing that love of man Hillel taught. The feeling of love for one's neighbor shows itself also in his exhortation (Avot 2:4).

How far his love of man went may be seen from an example that shows that benevolence must be given with regard to the needs of the poor. Thus, Hillel provided a riding horse to a man of good family who became poor, in order that he not be deprived of his customary physical exercise; he also gave him a slave, that he might be served.[23]

Other maxims

• "Don't trust yourself until the day you die".[24]

• "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[24]

• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[25]

• "A name gained is a name lost."[26]

• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[27]

• "My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation."[28]

 

[John1.12]

Let's use Caligula.
"Eighty years after Caligula’s death in 41 A.D., Suetonius wrote a Life of Caligula. In it, he uses, cites, and quotes eyewitness and contemporary documentation. He shows he was reading the correspondence and memoirs of Caligula’s own family, the books and poems of eyewitnesses who knew him, contemporary inscriptions and government documents. He not only tells us about them, and quotes or cites them, but even discusses their relative reliability."

All of the following can be confirmed in peer reviewed monographs about Caligula. I’ll cite popular sources simply because you can access them. But trust me, the same data is well confirmed in the real deal, including: Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography (University of California Press, 2015); Sam Wilkinson, Caligula (Routledge, 2003); and Anthony Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (Yale University Press, 1990).

• We have busts and statues of Caligula carved from life. Indeed, Wikipedia correctly says “Based on scientific reconstructions of his official painted busts, Caligula had brown hair, brown eyes, and fair skin” (source: The Smithsonian). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of coins minted by and naming and depicting Caligula as the extant emperor (numerous examples are also depicted and discussed at Wikipedia; here’s another; and another). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of papyri, actually written during Caligula’s life, mentioning him as the reigning emperor (e.g. as Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus). Because that was how documents were dated (example; example; example). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have a huge number of contemporary inscriptions, erected by Caligula himself and eyewitnesses to his reign. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.

• We have excavated several of Caligula’s most peculiar ships. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have actual wine barrels from Caligula’s private vineyard, with his name on them. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• We have his mother’s tombstone, declaring him her child. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• Pliny the Elder, an eyewitness to Caligula, supplies us a great deal of information directly from his own observations, and from government records and other eyewitness and contemporary sources. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
• 
  
• Other eyewitnesses and contemporaries who report on Caligula include Philo of Alexandria and Seneca, who both met with him personally, and record several things about him (e.g. Philo’s Flaccus and On [My] Embassy to Gaius [Caligula]; Seneca’s On Consolation to My Mother Helvia and On Rage and On the Constancy of the Wise).
• 
  
• We have extensive accounts of Caligula in Josephus (a historian born when Caligula reigned, discussing Caligula within only 35 years of his death, and more extensively only 52 years after his death), an account that is exactly in Josephan style and rich with realistic detail (Antiquities of the Jews 18-19, written c. 93 A.D.; and Jewish War 2.184-203, written c. 76 A.D.). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No. Not even the alleged Josephan mentions of Jesus qualify on any relevant point.
• • We know eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Caligula wrote works about him that are lost but that are discussed and used by later writers. These include Seneca’s own friend Fabius Rusticus; Cluvius Rufus, a senator actually involved in the assassination of Caligula (very likely these were the sources employed by Josephus, who even mentions and quotes Cluvius); the memoirs of Claudius (Caligula’s successor); the published correspondence of Augustus; and various poets (e.g. Gaetulicus). Even Caligula’s sister, Nero’s mother, Agrippina the Younger, wrote up her own memoirs that were cited and used as a source for Caligula by several later historians. Do we have anything like any of this for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • We have several later critical historians writing about Caligula who name, cite and quote eyewitness, documentary, and contemporary sources for Caligula: e.g. besides Suetonius (whose example of this I already discussed), also Tacitus, Life of Agricola 10 (written c. 98 A.D.), and Annals 13.20 (written c. 116 A.D.), and even Dio Cassius (not even two hundred years after the fact). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • We even have government documents that do this: for example, we have unearthed a bronze tablet copy (dating c. 168 A.D.) of a letter personally written by Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Journal of Roman Studies 1973.63) that mentions him consulting the extant register of those granted citizenship by Caligula (in a list of such registers from other emperors as well). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • Oh…and we have Caligula him-fracking-self! An inscription recording his own letter, in his own words, to the Achaean League, dated 19 August 37 A.D. (Inscriptiones Graecae 7.2711, ll. 21-43). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  • 
    
  • • We also have declarations of alliance and celebration from many localities at the accession to power of Caligula. For example, the Oath declared by the Aritensians, inscribed on stone shortly after 11 May 37 A.D., elaborately asserting they shall ally with Caligula and declare his enemies their enemies; similarly the Cyzicans as well; and the Oath and Decree of Celebration of the Assians of the same year, which says they are sending an embassy “to seek an audience with and congratulate him, and beg him to remember” their city “as he personally promised when together with his father Germanicus he first set foot in our city’s province” (see Lewis & Reinhold, Vol. 2, § 3 and 9). So here we have the eyewitness, original autograph testimony, of an entire city of people. Caligula was with his father at the age of six when he visited their region (so they are trucking rather hard on the utterance of a toddler). But you don’t say this of, or send embassies to, a guy who doesn’t exist. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? Hell to the no.
  For Jesus we have zero outside sources (they only confirm Christians who followed the Gospels) and 4 gospels. All copied from Mark who scholarship demonstrates sourced Psalms, Paul and other fiction to create an earthly narrative for Jesus using highly allegorical, mythical literary devices. The general myths can all be traced to earlier cultures from rising saviors to souls belonging to heaven, messianic prophecies and apoctalyiptic world ending stories with resurrection. It's all Persian/Hellenistic concepts. Nations who just happened to invade Israel when the concepts were being introduced to the OT during the 2nd temple period?

Are you saying Jesus never existed ( The man even) ?

 

[joelr]

Are you saying Jesus never existed ( The man even) ?

I don't know. Bart Ehrman thinks there was a man but he hasn't directly debunked Carriers work which points out the assumptions and explains why they are faulty. Carrier gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism. No one will know for certain. I lean towards Carrier until Ehrman addresses his points in a debate.

There is presadence for euhemizeration - a god undergoing a passion in a celestial realm and later earthly biographies are written about him.

 

[John1.12]

This source is a Christian author and apologist. There are no historical mentions of Jesus that are not either considered forgery by academia or simply references to a group of people who followed what is said in the gospels. This is not confirmation of anything except that there were Christians.

Here is a biblical historian comments on historical sources that mention Jesus:

“Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not . And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.
“Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”

Actually, he probably didn’t . And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.

“Suetonius mentions Jesus”

No, he doesn’t
“Serapion mentions Jesus”

That’s both disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.
“Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”

Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.
“Lucian mentions Jesus”

Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

“Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”

As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts against historicity.
“Celsus attacks Jesus’s character”

Celsus wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Celsus only used the Gospels as his source. He knew no other sources to check. Therefore, Celsus is not an independent source. Nor could he have known the truth of what really happened over a hundred years before his time. This evidence is useless.

26. “Clement of Rome writes on Jesus’s existence”

Not on earth ). Clement seems only to know of a Jesus as a revelatory being who communicates through visions and having planted hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures. Just like Paul. So Clement’s letter actually counts against historicity.

27. “Ignatius of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Using only Gospels as his source. And nearly a century after the fact. Therefore, useless .

28. “Quadratus of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto .

29. “Aristides the Athenian writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto (ibid.).

30. “Justin Martyr writes on Jesus’s existence”

Ditto. In fact, now we are a 130 years after the fact. And Justin’s only sources are the Gospels. This is useless.



31. “Hegesippus writes on Jesus existence”

A century and a half too late, in contexts that are patently ridiculous, and wholly unsourced ().


as to the gospels:

“The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John


Modern Christian scholarship has demonstrated that Mark is beyond a doubt the source gospel. All others took his narrative and expanded on it.

// Modern Christian scholarship//
//Here is a biblical historian//
//by academia//
Blah ,blah , blah ....
What a load of twaddle . Prove it ? Prove that you have really done the home work . Because I hear this all the time . I used to do it before I was a Christian. I would gravitate to ' certain 'scholars, particular historians that fit the bias i already had . What i never ever did was do the home work my self . I never took the time to investigate myself . I just took the ' scholars 'word on it . Conflicting scholars with different motives , from different backgrounds with different motivation/ agendas all arguing who s correct. You can find all sorts of weird and wonderful claims from the ' scholars 'on the bible.
Then people who never take the time to read the accounts themselves just quote these ' scholars '.

 

[John1.12]

I don't know. Bart Ehrman thinks there was a man but he hasn't directly debunked Carriers work which points out the assumptions and explains why they are faulty. Carrier gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism. No one will know for certain. I lean towards Carrier until Ehrman addresses his points in a debate.

There is presadence for euhemizeration - a god undergoing a passion in a celestial realm and later earthly biographies are written about him.

//I lean towards Carrier until Ehrman addresses his points in a debate.//
As I thought. Have you done the homework yourself?

 

[John1.12]

I don't know. Bart Ehrman thinks there was a man but he hasn't directly debunked Carriers work which points out the assumptions and explains why they are faulty. Carrier gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism. No one will know for certain. I lean towards Carrier until Ehrman addresses his points in a debate.

There is presadence for euhemizeration - a god undergoing a passion in a celestial realm and later earthly biographies are written about him.

//I don't know. Bart Ehrman thinks //
Whats wrong with this statement?

 

[joelr]

//I don't know. Bart Ehrman thinks //
Whats wrong with this statement?

There is nothing wrong with it. As if blind belief in stories is to be applauded?
I don't know is a statement based on all available evidence. We cannot know for sure if a man named Jesus exists. Sourcing scholars who spend their lives studying original sources, non-bias is actually the intelligent approach.

Are the supernatural stories myth, yes. About to the degree Greek stories are myth.

Now you please explain what you think is wrong with that statement and expose massive confirmation bias.

 

[KerimF]

I don't know what you want, kermin. You ask for other religions that say basically "Love you neughbor as yourself. But when I produce treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated you throw a hissy fit because they don't use Jesus exact quote even though they mean basically the same thing. You want a "Gotcha"? Here's one for you. Produce any account outside the Bible from a secular historian who witnessed the risen Jesus and wrote, "I actually saw a man return from the dead and dead bodies walking into Jerusalem and an unnatural darkness cover the land when a man was crucified." That would be proof positive Jesus rose. bet you can't. Until you can Jesus' resurrection is just a legend. Go ahead. I dare you.

Okay, it seems your mind has no choice but seeing whoever talks of Jesus EXACTLY as the only image that your mind had about a Christian.

[1] I said very clearly I am not Christian like any Christian you might know or meet. I can't believe something based on faith. So Jesus to me is the source of Knowledge I was looking for.

[2] Jesus miracles have nothing to do with what I learnt from Him. So I personally don't care if they happened or not. In other words, I didn't expect my teacher of Math or Physics to impress me by certain miracles in order to let me believe whatever he was teaching.

Believe me, I am writing you this while I am sure 100% that your mind can't get any meaning of my words other than the SOLE image it had about whoever mentions Jesus. But this is not bad. It is natural that two friends may have totally different natures because this is how the world is created; the nature of every human is unique despite the common human's appearance.

 

[joelr]

// Modern Christian scholarship//
//Here is a biblical historian//
//by academia//
Blah ,blah , blah ....
What a load of twaddle . Prove it ? Prove that you have really done the home work . Because I hear this all the time . I used to do it before I was a Christian. I would gravitate to ' certain 'scholars, particular historians that fit the bias i already had . What i never ever did was do the home work my self . I never took the time to investigate myself . I just took the ' scholars 'word on it . Conflicting scholars with different motives , from different backgrounds with different motivation/ agendas all arguing who s correct. You can find all sorts of weird and wonderful claims from the ' scholars 'on the bible.
Then people who never take the time to read the accounts themselves just quote these ' scholars '.

Speaking about "blah blah"....wow? I was Christian and told to look into historical sources. I already know the apologetics. Now I know why it's crank psuedo-science. There are not really "conflicting scholars", the entire biblical historicity field is generally in agreement about a man being mythicised as a savior demigod after the fact according to OT prophecy and pagan religions prior to Christianity.
I see consensus, evidence and rationale explorations to come to conclusions. In apologetics I see ridiculous work-arounds to make fantasy true.

The biblical archeologists are also in consensus, Moses is a myth, Exodus is a national foundation myth, Noah and the creation stories are Mesopotamian myths, 2nd temple Judaism are the beginning of borrowing Persian/Greek concepts. The scholars generally agree on most points and actually put forth evidence when they make a claim.

"Conflicting scholars with different motives , from different backgrounds with different motivation/ agendas all arguing who s correct. Y

What I thought. You don't know anything about biblical scholarship. From Thomas Thompsons work on Moses being mythical up to Ehrman, Carrier, Purvoe, Pagels, none of them have radically different opinions, they have re-read source material countless times and any that were Christian are no longer. You may be confusing crank with actual work done in the field. What matters is evidence and how it's evaluated. If new and good evidence comes in then it's respected if it's unsourced and crank then it cannot even get peer-reviewed.
The expert on the Persian religion is Mary Boyce. She spent her life working on Zoroastrianism and lived in Iran for over a year. All of her work is based on available original source material and no one is attempting to debunk her work.
Oh, wait, no, apologists consistantly deny her work based on Google articles and other amateur apologetics they find using a search. The only conflicts are when established facts are challenged by apologetics writing articles to make believers feel better.

What you mention sounds like crank history where anyone with money can write a "researched history" and get it published by paying a publisher. Like Joseph Atwells Ceasars Messia or DaVinci Code or the book that claimed Jesus was a copy of Horus. All crank written by non-scholars.

The historicity field does read scripture, original sources as well as all variants and any historical mentions from other sources. They spend 4 years just learning how to vette sources and read arimaic, Hebrew, Greek, all dialects from the period and other religious scripture, Latin and any other language source histories were written in. There are specialists in NT, OT, Acts, Q gospel, Josephus, Gnostic gospels and archeologists as well. They paint a picture that has many consensus opinions.
I have no idea what you are speaking of or are you just making stuff up?

 

[joelr]

//I lean towards Carrier until Ehrman addresses his points in a debate.//
As I thought. Have you done the homework yourself?

That's funny. When you need heart surgery are you going to "do your own research"? Are you going to build your own airplane when crossing the Pacific? Yet somehow because biblical historians and archeologists completely debunk your religion you're going with "think for yourself man..."

That is the massive confirmation bias I prophecized you would be displaying in my above post.


So we now know that there are far better attested historical figures than Jesus. In fact Jesus is not well attested at all. So what about that?
Do you have a specific point to start with or are you going to continue to ask me a simple question then respond with vague concepts about scholarship (which are false)?

Do you have a specific example of scholarship having all kinds of different opinions. Or examples of scholarship who hasn't read the original source? What does that even mean? Do you read the Greek and Hebrew?

 

[John1.12]

There is nothing wrong with it. As if blind belief in stories is to be applauded?
I don't know is a statement based on all available evidence. We cannot know for sure if a man named Jesus exists. Sourcing scholars who spend their lives studying original sources, non-bias is actually the intelligent approach.

Are the supernatural stories myth, yes. About to the degree Greek stories are myth.

Now you please explain what you think is wrong with that statement and expose massive confirmation bias.

Why would I trust Bart Erhman when I can chase it down myself ? Its ironic when folks say don't trust the men who wrote the bible, but trust men thousands of years later telling them what to believe?

 

[John1.12]

Speaking about "blah blah"....wow? I was Christian and told to look into historical sources. I already know the apologetics. Now I know why it's crank psuedo-science. There are not really "conflicting scholars", the entire biblical historicity field is generally in agreement about a man being mythicised as a savior demigod after the fact according to OT prophecy and pagan religions prior to Christianity.
I see consensus, evidence and rationale explorations to come to conclusions. In apologetics I see ridiculous work-arounds to make fantasy true.

The biblical archeologists are also in consensus, Moses is a myth, Exodus is a national foundation myth, Noah and the creation stories are Mesopotamian myths, 2nd temple Judaism are the beginning of borrowing Persian/Greek concepts. The scholars generally agree on most points and actually put forth evidence when they make a claim.



What I thought. You don't know anything about biblical scholarship. From Thomas Thompsons work on Moses being mythical up to Ehrman, Carrier, Purvoe, Pagels, none of them have radically different opinions, they have re-read source material countless times and any that were Christian are no longer. You may be confusing crank with actual work done in the field. What matters is evidence and how it's evaluated. If new and good evidence comes in then it's respected if it's unsourced and crank then it cannot even get peer-reviewed.
The expert on the Persian religion is Mary Boyce. She spent her life working on Zoroastrianism and lived in Iran for over a year. All of her work is based on available original source material and no one is attempting to debunk her work.
Oh, wait, no, apologists consistantly deny her work based on Google articles and other amateur apologetics they find using a search. The only conflicts are when established facts are challenged by apologetics writing articles to make believers feel better.

Do you think its likely that skeptical 'scholars ' are going to take miracles seriously? Hands up anyone ? Are you so naive to think 'scholars ', unbelieving Scholars, who do not believe there is a God , let alone claims , of a virgin birth , walking on water , healing the blind, the deaf and mute , water into wine, raising the dead , casting out demons, and rising from the dead three days after being buried in a tomb, claiming to have come from heaven , the Son of God , eternally existing, saying he's the only way for the whole of mankind to recieve salvation from the wrath to come upon the earth . Let alone accounts of speaking Creation into existence creating man from the dust of the ground , a woman from his rib , talking serpent , The fall, people living for over 900 years , The Ark , the world wide Flood , the plagues in Egypt, parting the sea , talking burning Bush, David and Goliath ?
How do unbelieving scholars view the bible? Seriously? with belief ? credibility? Trust ? An open mind lol ?
" Oh the only reason I don't trust the men who wrote the Gospels , is because if you look at the narrative , with the indexing, and the over use of the syntax, and the greek overlay with the form of punctuation, you will see that the writer really is reacting from a early source that we know from the accounts we find in the narrative of the chromosome ,and we looked under the microscope and we found a smudge on the ink and we analysed the findings with the leading linguistc expert and he said that with the contradicting comparison when we put the sample through the microwave we found that the bible is a false "
Hogwash!! Wake up and smell the book sales .
like any of that is the reason' Scholars' reject the narrative or even approach the bible with any sense of it being true to begin with.

 

[KerimF]

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia
died 10CE
The Golden Rule
Love of peace
Obligations to self and others
Other maxims

• "Don't trust yourself until the day you die".[24]

• "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[24]

• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[25]

• "A name gained is a name lost."[26]

• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[27]

• "My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation."[28]

Thank you for introducing this.
By the way, when I visited China for business (where most people, Chinese, are supposed to be Atheist), I saw them apply these great rules instinctively in their life (naturally, and as in every region, there were some exceptions to the rule).

Now, I wish you can help me find some, other that Jesus Christ, who revealed clearly in public:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
He also said very clearly:
"But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek,
turn to him the other also."

But, truth be told, I am nor sure that you can see that Jesus revealed an Unconditional Love which is far beyond the great golden rules you were kind to post. I say this because my friend SeekingAllTruth finds hard to get it.

 

[joelr]

Why would I trust Bart Erhman when I can chase it down myself ? Its ironic when folks say don't trust the men who wrote the bible, but trust men thousands of years later telling them what to believe?

Chase what down yourself? Can you read the original Greek? To pick up that Mark used Paul (in part) to create his story I would not get that. Scholars who study the words over and over and find connections. do you find these things. I'm sure you are against finding knowledge but that's how it is.

Are you going to discover a new particle? No. A Physicist might. Did you notice all the mythic devices used in Mark? I didn't. But a scholar who understand these things can. Sounds like you don't want the truth exposed.


We do not trust the men who wrote the gospels because we have evidence that they made up a fiction.

The synoptic problem without a doubt demonstrates Mark was the source and the small addittions were just creative liscence.
We have excellent evidence that Mark used Paul, Psalms and structured his gospel using Markan sandwiches, triadic inversions of OT narratives, in other words, it's mythmaking. Plain and simple.

So no, I do not trust biblical writers to be creating history any more than Hindu writers or Greek epics.
Sometimes it takes scholars to show deeper truths.
Also dying rising savior gods who rise in 3 days, really common before Jesus in that region. Doesn't say that in biblical narrative. I prefer truth. If you want a fantasy version of reality continue to mock people who can help you see the complete picture.

 

[John1.12]

Chase what down yourself? Can you read the original Greek? To pick up that Mark used Paul (in part) to create his story I would not get that. Scholars who study the words over and over and find connections. do you find these things. I'm sure you are against finding knowledge but that's how it is.

Are you going to discover a new particle? No. A Physicist might. Did you notice all the mythic devices used in Mark? I didn't. But a scholar who understand these things can. Sounds like you don't want the truth exposed.

Are you being serious ? Any one can access the materials on the Internet ( on your phone ) Bible hub , Olive tree , blue letter bible, lexicon , Just click on the verse and you can compare the greek ( interlinear)

 

[joelr]

Thank you for introducing this.
By the way, when I visited China for business (where most people, Chinese, are supposed to be Atheist), I saw them apply these great rules instinctively in their life (naturally, and as in every region, there were some exceptions to the rule).

Now, I wish you can help me find some, other that Jesus Christ, who revealed clearly in public:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
He also said very clearly:
"But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek,
turn to him the other also."

But, truth be told, I am nor sure that you can see that Jesus revealed an Unconditional Love which is far beyond the great golden rules you were kind to post. I say this because my friend SeekingAllTruth finds hard to get it.

But how do you know it's a truth beyond the great golden rules? It sounds a lot like Hillilite wisdom?
It's all in Hindu Vedic wisdom as well.