There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

Sorry I though you might be interested in knowing that there is good evidence that Jesus existed. My mistake.



Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.[h] 32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged Jesus to place his hand on him.

It seems to be a classic case of people making comments and not knowing what they are talking about.
Jesus was zig zagging around Israel for a start, preaching all over, and the passage does not tell us that He was heading from Tyre to Galilee, that was not an itinerary, that was just where He ended up and the route He took.
And in the translation I have (above) it is pretty straight forward and different to the description given in your site which I happened upon and which does not even give the scripture reference. Mark: failed geography, but great bible student
There is no need for any apologetics to explain it. There is nothing to explain.

My apology for the rude remark, it wasn't called for.

There are explanations that apologists proffer to explain Jesus' wild jag. It's one of those things that neither proves nor disproves. Some scholars believe the writers of Mark didn't know the terrain; some Christian scholars explain away the odd path Jesus took by saying there were mountains that blocked Jesus' path to Decapolis. Or yours--that Jesus made pit stops to preach along the way. In the end one has to remember that none of the eyewitnesses to Jesus worte a word of the gospels; they were written up to a century later by Greek scholars who likely had never been to Israel nor did they have an inkling what went on there.

 

[F1fan]

I just answer questions when they're asked. Critics pose the questions assuming they can't be answered, as if the questions have no possible answer. Then when I bring an answer the goal post gets shifted.

Anyone can answer any question, the dispute tends to be whether the answers believers offer are based on credible evidence, or at least plausible. The fatal dilemma for most all religious answers is the assumptions that are necessary that critical thinkes dismiss. Critical thinkers don't tell believers they can't believe what they do, we only assss the truthfulness of religious claims and examine the explanations, and any evidence that is offered, if any. For example a believer may assert a Bible passage means X, and perhaps it does, but that interpretation doesn't establish that X is objectively true.

There it is. The default is, it's untrue. My objection was "I don't know" is not considered a valid option. And that is coming from your own words saying the default is "it's untrue" without evidence. In this case there is minimal evidence so "I don't know" is proper. "It's false" is not.

You are quibbling. I suggest treating claims as untrue is synonymous with "I don't know". That believers have answers they believe are true does not mean this standard is at the level of truth used by logic and critical thought.

Two questions: Did you eat a ham sandwich for lunch? I don't know. Does any sort of God exist? I don't know. A ham sandwich for lunch is vastly more probable since we know ham sandiwiches actually exist, and people eat them for lunch. Gods? Who knows? Not believers. This is why I suggest everyone is agnostic where it comes to most all god concepts, none of us have facts, and none of us have knowlegde. We can know the descriptions of Apollo, Yahweh, Zeus, but we don't know if any of them exist.

And yet they believe rumors about stories being copied, and exaggerated mythical qualities without checking the facts.

So your gripe is with historians and experts in ancient lore. That we don't have first hand sources is more of the mysterious roots of the Caananites and Hebrews.

Lol. See. I gave you data, you ignored it. I gave you the misconception, the reason it's easily confused, a plausible explanation how the story was introduced into the Epic. And there is no acknowledgement.

I never said it was true, I said there's no evidence of copying.

Here's a link to Wikipedia showing the dating, confirming the version with the flood is approx. 1300bce-1000bce.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Notice the date of the old version LACKING any flood story? 2100BCE. That's the date people trot out when ever the Epic is spoken of as the source of the flood story. But a non-critical thinker hears this, bobbles their head, "yup, yup, was copied, yup".

And if you research the Iron Age Collapse you'll see that this period in that area was ripe for myth sharing, which explains why a Jewish flood story got added to the Epic at that time.

Neither of us are experts. I have heard experts say it is most likely that the Noah myth was a retelling of Gilgamesh. I find that a resonable conclusion since there are patterns of copying in ancient stories and cross culture influence.

And what was the insult? I said the so-called critical thinkers, like yourself, who make claims about the Epic being copied, like you did, don't know the facts about when that story was added, and you didn't know that, and they haven't even read the Epic, which I'm pretty sure you haven't, don't actually care about the facts.

I understand you think highly of yourself. The insult is bolded above. You have your beliefs and arguments, and some don't agree. You should keep it civil instead of making it personal.

Your claim, your burden.

I never claimed it was a copy. You have a problem taking humble comments and inflating then into claims. I have said nothing more than it is most likely that Noah was copied, and I base that on what I have heard experts say.

For this thread, for this OP, simply acknowledging there is a plausible reason why the historians of the period didn't write of about Jesus' miracles: The scale of the story was exaggerated, what actually happened involved much fewer people, the spread of the movement was much slower, much more limited, and fantasical events after Jesus' death might be completely fabricated because the standards for lying about Jesus are much more strict than lying about some zombies, supernatural darkness, and a massive earthquake.

But the bottom line is that the stories are not consistent with what we observe and know of reality, so if anyone is going to claim the Jesus myth is true they need to bring a truck load of evidence. You say "lying" here as a motive, but you certainly know that ancient writers didn't write in terms to jouranalistic standards. Lying implies an intent to deceive and I don't think that is what ancient writers intended. Mordern people who are capable of understanding true statements, and can understand true statements versus untrue statements can lie about ideas in the Bible. Creationism are an example, as it is nothing more than deliberate fraud.

 

[PureX]

It's sad, and telling, how all these folks crying out for "evidence" have set themselves up as the singular unimpeachable judges of what is and is not "credible evidence" so that they can then dismiss ANY evidence they're given.

Bias and willful ignorance masquerading as "reason" is a sad thing to witness, ... over and over and over again.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Bart Ehrman on the Existence of Jesus

Skeptic Bart Ehrman says to those who deny Jesus existed, “It makes you look foolish.”

www.str.org

But don't panic, you can still not believe the gospels while believing Jesus existed.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a positive reviews of Ehrman's "The Historical Jesus" from a non-Christian scholar. And that goes back to the opinion floating around in the academic sphere: that Ehrman couldn't have been less interested in writing a book defending someone he's made a career of blasting; that he was pressured to write something in defense of Jesus by the trustees of NCU to at least demonstrate he could be partial about Jesus rather than completely against him, and the shoddy writing and weakly supported arguments pretty much proves this:

Did Jesus Exist?–-Review of Bart Ehrman’s New Book​

I found the book disappointing, for two main reasons. The first is that it spends an inordinate amount of time in ad hominem argument. The second disappointment: there are in fact reputable scholars who do not agree with Ehrman’s key arguments, but he ignores them.

Did Jesus Exist?–-Review of Bart Ehrman’s New Book

At the SBL conference I ran across a new book of Bart Ehrman’s titled Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Why, you might ask, does a whole book need to be written about …

tomdykstra.wordpress.com

Once again, as I said with Brian: Christians will rally to the defense of anything no matter how crappy if it supports their avatar man god, Jesus. They cherry-pick what suits them and toss out any scholarship that refutes their beliefs no matter how solid the evidence.

 

[lukethethird]

You never heard of Flavius Josephus ? who said that James was the brother of Christ - Jewish Antiquities XX,200
What about Tacitus, didn't Tacitus exist ? Tacitus said Christus, the founder of the name 'Christian' .... undergone death by Pontius Pilatus.- Annals XV,44
What about Pontius Pilate, didn't he exist ? ______
What about Suetonius, didn't he exist ? Who believed Jesus caused or created disturbances, but he did Not doubt Jesus existence.
What about Pliny the Younger, didn't he exist ? ..... and who finally cursed Christ - Pliny-Letters Book X,XCVI
Weren't the public figures mentioned at Luke chapter 3 real people ?

We have evidence that Pilate existed, as well as Jerusalem, but Nazareth, not so much. What is the point that you are trying to make, that johnny come lately historians writing in the second century account for something?

 

[lukethethird]

No, he is not a believer. But is is a qualified scholar. That is why he rejects mythicists. For scholarly reasons.

Ehrman knows which side his bread is buttered on, I don't know that that makes him qualified but believers sure do like to pay to read that Jesus was real. There are many theories regarding things Jesus, about as many theories as there are scholars, but beyond believing in an echo chamber that Jesus really and truly walked the earth, the agreements on how they know or about who he was are non existent.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I don't think I'd say he was "just an ordinary man", if by that you mean nothing special. He was a human being, but I think it would be safe to say he was extraordinary enough to inspire a movement around him. Would you say that Gandhi was 'just an ordinary man", for instance?

Well, of course this is semantics; does "ordinary" equate to "natural"? I think you understand my reference to Jesus as ordinary was strictly in the sense that he was not supernatural, just a natural human being like you or I. Whether he was unique or special or inspirational like Ghandi is an entirely different argument.

What is wrong with you? You are accusing me of dishonesty? Did you not read my very words you quoting in this very post???

You had said, "Does Ehrman acknowledge the existence of a mircle-working Jesus... born of a virgin.... etc.?

To which I responded above, which you even quoted, "No, and neither do I".

Do you not read people's replies before you launch off into your false accusations of them? What's up with that?

Unless I'm mistaken, you didn't let on that you thought Jesus a non-supernatural being until after I responded to post #565. Even reading your entire #565 I always see you referring to Jesus as "the historical Jesus" which doesn't differentiate between the natural and the supernatural versions of him. Logically, I would have been under the impression at that point that you believed Jesus was a real God and thus my "accusation" that you were deliberately not differentiating between the two. If at point #565 you believed Jesus was a natural human being, then my apologies for misunderstanding.

Yet, you didn't read my post you actually quoted where I said that I don't take all those stories at face value as historically true. Go back and read post 612 and see for yourself.

Well, I actually responded to you twice before #612 came along, asking the same question if you thought Ehrman was referring to a natural or supernatural Jesus. You finally said in #612 you didn't think Jesus was supernatural. Did I accuse you anywhere after #612, there just too many posts to look through? If I did my apologies.

Ah, you found a "critic" who said this? As I said, try saying that of those like John Dominic Crossan, for starters.

Regardless of acknowledging that there is mythology in the gospels, that does not mean that there was not some extraordinary human being who made significant enough of an impact to spur a multifaceted movement. There's a lot that can be said about that, even if you don't want to elevate Jesus to the point of being a superhuman entity who walked on water and ascended into the clouds on the wings of angels.

Dismissive attitudes are just as religious and unrealistic as the 'true believer' who imagines it's all literally true. You tend to sound more like a "true unbeliever", which is the flipside of the same 'true believer' coin. Not an uncommon thing for one who thinks they have found the real truth now.

I'm the first to admit Jesus, if he existed, had to be an extraordinary person if only by virtue that his avatar inspired the largest religion in the world today. But you have to realize that it wasn't Jesus himself doing this, it was thousands of clever churchmen along with Constantine and Theodosius I who put Christianity on the map. Up to that point Christianity was just another backwater nothing little religion scattered in pockets around the Mediterranean. Constantine's choice of Christianity as his official religion ranks in my estimation as the most profound act in the history of the world. It enabled the RCC to become the most powerful body on earth, certainly in Europe for a thousand years. Jesus was only a figurehead for the Christian religion. Someone had to be up there standing on top of churches, might as well have been Jesus. Had Constantine chosen Mithra, we'd all be Mythrists and anti-Mythrists debating in here.

 

[Windwalker]

Ehrman knows which side his bread is buttered on, I don't know that that makes him qualified but believers sure do like to pay to read that Jesus was real.

You think died in the wool, Bible-believing Christians are fans of Bart Ehrman? I seriously do not believe they buy his books. It's more secular, agnostic and atheistic people who do.

There are many theories regarding things Jesus, about as many theories as there are scholars, but beyond believing in an echo chamber that Jesus really and truly walked the earth, the agreements on how they know or about who he was are non existent.

So, no one's opinion is any better than anyone else's? It's all just ear-tickling echo chambers to you? You can dismiss anything with that type of reasoning.

I've heard Creationists use that same line of reasoning to say that the only reason science believes in Evolution is because scientists are all atheists and hate God, plus it's all just a "theory" anyway. Doesn't have anything to do with the evidence, right?

 

[Windwalker]

Well, of course this is semantics; does "ordinary" equate to "natural"? I think you understand my reference to Jesus as ordinary was strictly in the sense that he was not supernatural, just a natural human being like you or I. Whether he was unique or special or inspirational like Ghandi is an entirely different argument.

Fair enough. I just wanted to clarify what you mean by 'just an ordinary human'. Yes, he was fully human, not an extraterrestrial, or some other superhuman being with special webbing on his feet that allowed him to walk on water.

Unless I'm mistaken, you didn't let on that you thought Jesus a non-supernatural being until after I responded to post #565. Even reading your entire #565 I always see you referring to Jesus as "the historical Jesus" which doesn't differentiate between the natural and the supernatural versions of him.

It's not a matter of me "letting on" anything. It's a matter of you do not understand the terminology. When I say "the historical Jesus" that is a specific term that is used in scholarship to differentiate that view of Jesus from the "theological Jesus", or the "Jesus of faith". The "historical Jesus" is meant to speak of the Jesus seen through the eyes of a historian, versus the "theological Jesus" which is meant to speak of the Jesus of faith, or the religious perspective. One is secular, the other is religious.

So I wasn't hiding anything. I was very specific that I was speaking of the secular, non-religious perspective of Jesus when I said "the historical Jesus".

Here's a Wiki blurb to affirm what I just explained to you: Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[6][7][8][9][10]​

​

That is everything I have always been saying consistently so far.

Logically, I would have been under the impression at that point that you believed Jesus was a real God and thus my "accusation" that you were deliberately not differentiating between the two. If at point #565 you believed Jesus was a natural human being, then my apologies for misunderstanding.

Yes, you have misunderstandings about this topic, and about me. I hope what I am sharing here is bringing you up to speed a little better.

I'm the first to admit Jesus, if he existed, had to be an extraordinary person if only by virtue that his avatar inspired the largest religion in the world today. But you have to realize that it wasn't Jesus himself doing this, it was thousands of clever churchmen along with Constantine and Theodosius I who put Christianity on the map.

Not quite right. Yes, the political system helped to establish Christianity as the State religion, but the reason why they targeted it in the first place did not have to do with them. Christianity had become enormously popular in the Roman Empire among the masses prior to Constantine, because they were active in creating social welfare systems to help the poor and needy, while their society had no programs in place.

All of that was driven by their religious faith which informed their lives. This made Christianity very popular. And when something is popular, then politicians will take advantage of that for their own desires for power and control. Many leading officials had become Christian, and so political power bases were beginning to emerge as a result. If you can get the masses behind you, because you support them, then you have power.

You see that same thing today, and through history, where politicians make themselves popular, by aligning themselves with popular movements or values. In the more insidious cases, they actually manufacture divides, such as whipping up people about things that were non-issues before, like abortion rights and gay marriage. That's a top-down, "divide and conquer" rule. It's just part of human nature and political systems.

But Christianity was a bottom-up, "grassroots" movement that was an ideology based upon love and helping your fellow person. It's was a social and spiritual movement that did not originally have the control of masses in mind. But like any good thing, it gets co opted and turned into that. I don't believe Christianity was ever meant to be separate religion of its own. It was more a philosophy of human love, a spiritual "humanism" would be a more modern term for it. Humanism can be either secular or spiritual.

 

[lukethethird]

You think died in the wool, Bible-believing Christians are fans of Bart Ehrman? I seriously do not believe they buy his books. It's more secular, agnostic and atheistic people who do.

So, no one's opinion is any better than anyone else's? It's all just ear-tickling echo chambers to you? You can dismiss anything with that type of reasoning.

I've heard Creationists use that same line of reasoning to say that the only reason science believes in Evolution is because scientists are all atheists and hate God, plus it's all just a "theory" anyway. Doesn't have anything to do with the evidence, right?

What is there to dismiss? Ehrman's ad hominem attacks towards those that question the status quo and his poisoning of the well fallacy, that no serious scholar questions Jesus's existence, none of that makes Jesus real. Ehrman's book offered nothing, so what is there to dismiss? Not a single quote from Ehrman's book has been posted on this thread in order to point to something that verifies the actual existence of the protagonist in question. Ehrman left his historical Jesus fan club members with nothing, he probably could be single handedly blamed for the failure and end of the third quest for an historical Jesus.

 

[Windwalker]

What is there to dismiss? Ehrman's ad hominem attacks towards those that question the status quo and his poisoning of the well fallacy, that no serious scholar questions Jesus's existence, none of that makes Jesus real. Ehrman's book offered nothing, so what is there to dismiss? Not a single quote from Ehrman's book has been posted on this thread in order to point to something that verifies the actual existence of the protagonist in question. Ehrman left his historical Jesus fan club members with nothing, he probably could be single handedly blamed for the failure and end of the third quest for an historical Jesus.

This is a highly cynical, and amusing post. Do you realize it was actually John Dominic Crossan that was the first to take what was already what modern scholarhip was saying about the historical Jesus, that by pure chance made its way out of the cloisters of academia into mainstream popular knowledge? Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? Ehrman is a late-comer to the conservation. So this is far heavier duty than you seem to be aware of. Read a little of this article to give you a flavor for the topic:

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[6][7][8][9][10]​

​

Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels, while several non-biblical sources also support his historical existence.[11][12][13] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[14][15] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and crucified.[16][17][18][19] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[20] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[21]​

​

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed through history using these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[22] Such portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah, prophet of social change,[23][24] and rabbi.[25][26] There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it,[22][27][28] but there are overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][29]​

​

Historical existence[edit]​

Main article: Historicity of Jesus​

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[7][8][30] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[31] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[32][33]​

​

Since the 1970s, various scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders and Gerd Theissen have traced elements of Christianity to currents in first-century Judaism and have discarded nineteenth-century views that Jesus was based on previous pagan deities.[34] Mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians.[7] Differences between the content of the Jewish Messianic prophecies and the life of Jesus undermine the idea that Jesus was invented as a Jewish Midrash or Peshar.[35]: 344–351  The presence of details of Jesus' life in Paul, and the differences between letters and Gospels, are sufficient for most scholars to dismiss mythicist claims concerning Paul.[35]: 208–233 [36] Theissen says "there is broad scholarly consensus that we can best find access to the historical Jesus through the Synoptic tradition."[37] Bart D. Ehrman adds: "To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly."[7]: 73 ​

And this goes on and on. So, I'd suggest you maybe familiarize yourself a little more with the topic before you try to scapegoat poor old Bart Ehrman.

 

[lukethethird]

This is a highly cynical, and amusing post. Do you realize it was actually John Dominic Crossan that was the first to take what was already what modern scholarhip was saying about the historical Jesus, that by pure chance made its way out of the cloisters of academia into mainstream popular knowledge? Have you ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? Ehrman is a late-comer to the conservation. So this is far heavier duty than you seem to be aware of. Read a little of this article to give you a flavor for the topic:

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[6][7][8][9][10]​

​

Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels, while several non-biblical sources also support his historical existence.[11][12][13] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[14][15] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and crucified.[16][17][18][19] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[20] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[21]​

​

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed through history using these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[22] Such portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah, prophet of social change,[23][24] and rabbi.[25][26] There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it,[22][27][28] but there are overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][29]​

​

Historical existence[edit]​

Main article: Historicity of Jesus​

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[7][8][30] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[31] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[32][33]​

​

Since the 1970s, various scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders and Gerd Theissen have traced elements of Christianity to currents in first-century Judaism and have discarded nineteenth-century views that Jesus was based on previous pagan deities.[34] Mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians.[7] Differences between the content of the Jewish Messianic prophecies and the life of Jesus undermine the idea that Jesus was invented as a Jewish Midrash or Peshar.[35]: 344–351  The presence of details of Jesus' life in Paul, and the differences between letters and Gospels, are sufficient for most scholars to dismiss mythicist claims concerning Paul.[35]: 208–233 [36] Theissen says "there is broad scholarly consensus that we can best find access to the historical Jesus through the Synoptic tradition."[37] Bart D. Ehrman adds: "To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly."[7]: 73 ​

And this goes on and on. So, I'd suggest you maybe familiarize yourself a little more with the topic before you try to scapegoat poor old Bart Ehrman.

Exactly my point, bandwagon fallacies, that many scholars believe, and the message that they all read their Bible. Got anything of substance?

 

[Windwalker]

Exactly my point, bandwagon fallacies, that many scholars believe, and the message that they all read their Bible. Got anything of substance?

Absolutely. Read the article.

BTW, when you were a Christian, did you call the majority of scientists who accept evolution as the "bandwagon fallacy" because they disagreed with your beliefs in a 6000 year old earth? Sometimes when the majority all concur on something, it has actual meaning.

I can't really take you seriously when you post stuff like this. You need to do your own homework here.

 

[Thrillobyte]

It's not a matter of me "letting on" anything. It's a matter of you do not understand the terminology. When I say "the historical Jesus" that is a specific term that is used in scholarship to differentiate that view of Jesus from the "theological Jesus", or the "Jesus of faith". The "historical Jesus" is meant to speak of the Jesus seen through the eyes of a historian, versus the "theological Jesus" which is meant to speak of the Jesus of faith, or the religious perspective. One is secular, the other is religious.

So I wasn't hiding anything. I was very specific that I was speaking of the secular, non-religious perspective of Jesus when I said "the historical Jesus".

Here's a Wiki blurb to affirm what I just explained to you: Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[6][7][8][9][10]That is everything I have always been saying consistently so far.

I concur. My definition of "historic" has been different from yours and it appears from the Wiki yours has been the correct one. Yet again the question arises: when Wiki says "The "historical Jesus" is meant to speak of the Jesus seen through the eyes of a historian, versus the "theological Jesus" are they talking about a fully human rabbi Jesus who died and rotted to dust or a supernatural son of God who rose from the dead Jesus?" I"m still confused. Which are they referring to?

Christianity had become enormously popular in the Roman Empire among the masses prior to Constantine

I don't agree and neither does Wiki. According to Wiki in 300 CE right before Constantine Christianity accounted for just 10% of Rome's population.

"With Christianity the dominant faith in some urban centers, Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates.[5]"

It was after Theodosius I in 380 that Christianity really took off accounting for roughly half of Rome's population going into the 5th century.

This made Christianity very popular. And when something is popular, then politicians will take advantage of that for their own desires for power and control.

This is not what I have read in many other histories. My understanding is that Christianity was just another religion in competition with four or five others for Constantine's attention, among them the Druids with their god, Hesus and the Indian god, Krishna. Read "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

Constantine liked Christianity because Christianity preached submission to their masters i.e.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1

Roman emperors would have loved this kind of philosophy because the Jews from which Christianity had originated had always been a thorn in the butt to Rome and Roman emperors would have welcomed ANY religion that preached "submit to Rome's authority and do not keep fighting against it." Christianity was tailor-made for what what Constantine was looking for for his new empire: PEACE.

 

[PureX]

Everyone is free to decide for themselves what the evidence means to them. But they are not free to decide for themselves or others what is and is not evidence.

All the evidence being offered by those in favor of Jesus' existence IS EVIDENCE. It does not have to convince those who don't want to be convinced in order for it to be evidence. It doesn't have to convince anyone, in fact, for it to be evidence. And there is a LOT of evidence that someone that is now being referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth' existed, and made a significant theological impact within his culture and time. So much so that the theological ideals attributed to him morphed and spread and even became a huge and influential global religion.

There is much that can be debated about the story of Jesus and what it means, even including the existence of such a man in a real time and place. And there is a lot of evidence to be considered. But in the end the story is now mythical, meaning that it is not about what actually happened, anymore, but about the ideals that the story presents to us in the present. That is where the truth of things should be sought. Not in the historical "evidence".

 

[lukethethird]

Absolutely. Read the article.

BTW, when you were a Christian, did you call the majority of scientists who accept evolution as the "bandwagon fallacy" because they disagreed with your beliefs in a 6000 year old earth? Sometimes when the majority all concur on something, it has actual meaning.

I can't really take you seriously when you post stuff like this. You need to do your own homework here.

Insults, typical.

 

[lukethethird]

Everyone is free to decide for themselves what the evidence means to them. But they are not free to decide for themselves or others what is and is not evidence.

All the evidence being offered by those in favor of Jesus' existence IS EVIDENCE. It does not have to convince those who don't want to be convinced in order for it to be evidence. It doesn't have to convince anyone, in fact, for it to be evidence. And there is a LOT of evidence that someone that is now being referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth' existed, and made a significant theological impact within his culture and time. So much so that the theological ideals attributed to him morphed and spread and even became a huge and influential global religion.

There is much that can be debated about the story of Jesus and what it means, even including the existence of such a man in a real time and place. And there is a lot of evidence to be considered. But in the end the story is now mythical, meaning that it is not about what actually happened, anymore, but about the ideals that the story presents to us in the present. That is where the truth of things should be sought. Not in the historical "evidence".

For the love of God, please name a piece of evidence.

 

[F1fan]

It's sad, and telling, how all these folks crying out for "evidence" have set themselves up as the singular unimpeachable judges of what is and is not "credible evidence" so that they can then dismiss ANY evidence they're given

In contrast to believers who will perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics to justify judgment that implausible religious concepts are true. Believers make extraordinary claims and critics will demand evidence in equal proportion. Of course the believer cries foul.

Bias and willful ignorance masquerading as "reason" is a sad thing to witness, ... over and over and over again.

A biased judgment against critical thinking. If only you had evidence for your beliefs, or could come to peace that you don’t.

 

[PureX]

For the love of God, please name a piece of evidence.

The story itself is evidence. The religion that follows from it is evidence. That so many people find it not only plausible, but profoundly significant is evidence. That the story conveys so much functional truth that people can test and personally experience in their own lives is evidence. Everything related to it is evidence.

But you can't see any of that because you think you are the arbiter of what is and isn't evidence. And you have no intention of accepting anything as evidence for the existence of God, or Christ, or even Jesus the man; ever. So you define evidence so absurdly narrowly as to eliminate any possibility of it existing. And then you walk away all pleased with yourself for having stood "undefeated" in your righteousness, against your "enemy's" absurd and foolish error.

Right?

 

[F1fan]

Everyone is free to decide for themselves what the evidence means to them. But they are not free to decide for themselves or others what is and is not evidence.

Try that in court. Courts have rules of evidence. Of course you want to bend the rules of logic because you can’t prevail in a religious debate without it. It’s almost Trump-like.

All the evidence being offered by those in favor of Jesus' existence IS EVIDENCE. It does not have to convince those who don't want to be convinced in order for it to be evidence. It doesn't have to convince anyone, in fact, for it to be evidence. And there is a LOT of evidence that someone that is now being referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth' existed, and made a significant theological impact within his culture and time. So much so that the theological ideals attributed to him morphed and spread and even became a huge and influential global religion

Theres evidence. It’s just not conclusive.

There is much that can be debated about the story of Jesus and what it means, even including the existence of such a man in a real time and place. And there is a lot of evidence to be considered. But in the end the story is now mythical, meaning that it is not about what actually happened, anymore, but about the ideals that the story presents to us in the present. That is where the truth of things should be sought. Not in the historical "evidence".

Are you telling Christians that the Gospels aren’t factual?