There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

“Again, even if we started from a neutral prior of 50% and walked our way through ‘all persons claimed to be historical’ to ‘all persons who became Rank–Raglan heroes’, we’d end up again with that same probability of 1 in 3. For example, if again there were 5,000 historical persons and 1,000 mythical persons, the prior probability of being historical would be 5/6; and of not being historical, 1/6. But if there are 10 mythical men in the Rank–Raglan class and 5 historical men (the four we are granting, plus one more, who may or may not be Jesus), then the probability of being in that class given that someone was historical would be 5/5000, which is 1/1000; and the probability given that they were mythical would be 10/1000, which is 1/100. This gives us a final probability of 1/3, hence 33%.16 No matter how you chew on it, no matter what numbers you put in, with these ratios you always end up with the same prior probability that Jesus was an actual historical man: just 33% at best.”

Excerpt From
On the Historicity of Jesus
Richard Carrier

That is from page 253. Earlier in the chapter about prior probability, pg 239 he mentions the RR class isn't important in the long run analysis:

"It won't really matter what you start with to determine prior probability, however, because whatever you don't use for that will become part of e (the evidence) anyway, which you will then have to deal with later, and when you do you will get the same mathematical result regardless. I will demonstrate that for this case later in the chapter. But for now, we have a clear-cut reference class to draw a prior from."

Richard Carrier says that, most other scholars disagree. You are still confusing what Richard Carrier says on his blog with uncontested fact.

Most scholars consider there to be multiple independent sources, some disagree.

"No one can ever cite any expert opinion on whether Josephus mentioned Jesus, if that opinion was published before 2014. Why? Because so much new research has been published on the subject in the last ten years, that opinions published earlier were uninformed (the latest important findings were published in 2013 and 2014, but crucial new results have come out from 2008 on; and one from way back in 1995 that has been ignored until now). Anytime someone cites or quotes someone saying Josephus mentioned Jesus, ask them, “When was that published?” Because if it was published before 2014, it doesn’t count. It’s like that scientist who says no data storage lasts beyond a few centuries. Because he wasn’t up to date on his own literature.


Since 2008, in addition to toppling the argument from Arabic, peer reviewed research has worsened the case for authenticity even further.

• The content, concepts, and sequence of the TF matches the gospel summary in Luke 24 (Goldberg 1995).
• The style of the TF is more Eusebian than Josephan (Olson 2013; Feldman 2012).
• And the narrative structure of the TF is not even remotely Josephan, but is a perfect match for Christian creedal statements (in respect to the treatment of time, story, emplotment, and apologetic: Hopper 2014)."

Hopper, Feldman and Goldberg are not Carrier? There are other papers discusses as well.
You are still making false assumptions about Carrier and my use of his work.

Yet all of them share things in common that are absent from the emergence of the Jesus cult: emergence in pretty much real time and explainable by a normal person with a small amount of magical mythology rather than a standard polytheistic god.

So, if Jesus was a man who was deified, would you a) expect his myths to follow cultural tropes b) not expect his myths to follow cultural tropes?

You are wrong. Just as Paul speaks of the suffering of Jesus Plutarch says the sufferings/passion (pathemata) of other savior gods were spoken of in other mystery cults.
Justin Martyr explained that Jesus was exactly like all the other Greek deities. He had to claim the devil made it look that way to fool Christians into thinking Jesus was just another Greek deity.
At a similar time when Jesus stories were beginning, Romulus stories were popular. He is the founder of Rome, he was the son of a God, born of a virgin, an attempt is made to kill him as a child, he is saved. raised by a poor family, became a lowly shepard, then beloved by the people and hailed as a king. He is killed by the elite, raised from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to the people and ascends to heaven to rule from high. Plutarch tells the story.
Just like Jesus. There is your normal person with "magic bits".

The Jesus myths follow tropes but with a Jewish spin on them. Many other demigods underwent their passion in the lower celestial realm and later stories on earth were set for them.

 

[joelr]

Actually its utility is contested, you again seem to think that your hero Richard Carrier stating something on his blog establishes it as uncontested fact and noting other scholars disagree thus constitutes "dismissing scholarship"

This is beside the point though as establishing its utility as a loosely descriptive class still doesn't establish its utility as the most meaningful category for establishing the historicity of a unique figure who also fits into many other categories.

Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (a royal with an unusual birth narrative) was viewed as a messianic supposed to usher in the Millennium, but died unexpectedly (on a hill no less) people didn't simply say "we were wrong", they believed he would be resurrected and lead the righteous poor to salvation.

Messianic figures who were expected to bring a utopian age existed in cultures from the ancient Med to ancient China to medieval Europe to 20th C figures like Hitler. All of them utilised tropes from their cultural environments to make a millenarian mythology where the chosen people will triumph over the forces of darkness.

If we look at the development of the biography of Muhammad we can see a real person becoming increasingly supernatural, being rewritten to comport to scripture and parallel the life of Moses, etc.

We have the Sibyllene Oracles which contain a mish-mash of Roman/Hellenistic, Hebrew, Gnostic and Christian myths and contain led to numerous millenarian myths based around real people (for example the Emperor Constans).

We have a religious tradition that flows from ancient Judaism to modernity that Jesus clearly fits into and contains messianic figures who were highly mythologised but also were real people.

You are creating imaginary classes using the word "messianic" while failing to explain the fact that Hellenistic religions are defined by four trends I outlined in the previous post (you ignored it) and gave an extensive list of savior god features. I gave a 19 part list of features these resurrecting saviors have. Ignored to propose 1 word class?
Ridiculous.
Hellenism and it's influence is established, which is why I accept Carrier's facts. So let's back up and look at Hellenistic religion and it's traits from a nice compact source, Britannica.

Hellenistic religion | Ancient Greek Gods, Rituals & Beliefs

Hellenistic religion, any of the various systems of beliefs and practices of eastern Mediterranean peoples from 300 bc to ad 300. The period of Hellenistic influence, when taken as a whole, constitutes one of the most creative periods in the history of religions. It was a time of spiritual

www.britannica.com

This shows all the Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad. This is why the "mystery religions" also had dying/rising sons/daughters of their one true God. Like Judaism they started out using Mesopotamian myths and then adopted Greek and Persian myths as well.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

Those aren’t the only 2 plausible non-supernatural historical hypotheses as they contain too many additional points.

More accurate would be:

1. Jesus was a mythologised human.
2. Jesus was a mythical figure later turned into a human.

No, myths are never turned into humans. Some people just take the stories literal.
BTW, your obsession with Carrier is weird. The four trends in Hellenistic religion,

Four Trends....

- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.
- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.
- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.
- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it


Is from Pakkanen-

Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)

It still has nothing to do with historicity, and was not created for the purpose of establishing historicity.

As a method of establishing any probability of mythicism for any given individual it is largely worthless.

You have this completely wrong. There are several literary class items used here, not just RR. Many examples given in each group.

1)Jewish and Pagan antiquity fabricating religious stories was the norm. Including the other 36 Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls.

2) Very common in this era was euhemerization, taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.
3)Hero narratives such as life and death of Socrates and Aesop.

4)Apotheosis - ascension to godhood tales, very popular

5)The Romulus apotheosis, the Romulus and Jesus death and resurrection narratives contain 20 parallels.
Reading the list sounds as if one is describing the NT exactly. Romulus was an older text.

When we create artificial categories, such as this case, and people within these artificial categories can be added to many other artificial yet very different categories, we should be careful about how much we assume based on being to fit them into these categories.

I didn't. I gave known categories with extensive lists backed by several historians. You made up one with one defining feature, messiah.

 

[joelr]

We could easily fit Frederick II and Muhammad into artificial categories with fictional people based on their magical abilities and Divine favour.

They fit almost none of the 19 features given and are clearly not Hellenistic savior deities.


Another feature of Greek deities, from historians Wright, Sanders and Hundley:

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[50] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[50] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[51][52] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[52] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[52] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[53] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[52] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[50] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC).[43] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[43]

Heaven - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still not seeing the space Jesus that some unknown person invented out of scripture then some other unknown person did a switcheroo and turned him into a human without anyone remembering or even considering could have happened despite their familiarity with Jewish scripture, space jizz and “dying and rising gods” as the most parsimonious explanation.

Truth does not require your beliefs. You have raised no significant points and have not debunked the known Hellenistic savior deities class, which is a known history.


Understanding the euhemerization aspect would probably require one to read the work of an expert and understand how the arguments are formed. Did you expect that knowledge just flows into your mind without study? Carrier has a long monograph and a short version as well.


Lataster has a long version.


David Litwa also has a work dealing with Jesus as a Greek deity.

We know from modern experience that when prophecies fail, people tend to double down rather than admit they are wrong.

Yes, you have been doubling down and repeating claims without evidence and without responding to existing evidence. It seems in lieu of evidence you prefer stating what is true regardless of how little it matches reality.

Maybe all of the other references are forgeries or interpolations or refer to different James brother of Jesus, or maybe the majority of experts are right.

If you mean the experts are apologists or theology scholars, they are never going to change their opinion.


If you mean historical scholarship, the opinions have largely changed. Your knowledge needs updating, if you care about truth.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

or here:

The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier Blogs

A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript...

www.richardcarrier.info

This demonstrates the peer-reviewed work from several historians, why you continue to think it's all Carrier.....is a mystery?



A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.


The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at researchgate).


So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.


For those who want to understand how this new evidence from Hopper works to produce that conclusion, here is a quick summary:

• (1) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used finite verbs differently than Josephus does.....

 

[joelr]

I find we can trace mankind's religious family tree all the way back to ancient Babylon - Genesis chapter 11 from Nimrod - Gen. 10:8
As the people migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their religious ideas and practices and spread them not only to Persia but world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
This is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas even in today's religions.
So, yes the Persians would have known about Eden but that does Not mean Eden came from Persian beginnings.

The Israelites began around 1200 BC. They did not influence the Persians and the re-worked Mesopotamian myths to create Genesis.

As is taught in the Yale Divinity lectures by Dr John Collins, the Israelites were influenced by the Persians during the occupation.

The Mesopotamian myths were 1000 years older than the OT. Before 1200 BC the Israelites were Canaanites and had a different religion.
Every nation had myths that created a fictional line going back to what they thought was the beginning times. They are fictional stories.


ttps://www.worldhistory.org/article/225/enuma-elish---the-babylonian-epic-of-creation---fu/Genesis/Enuma Elish


The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[Colt]

They fit almost none of the 19 features given and are clearly not Hellenistic savior deities.


Another feature of Greek deities, from historians Wright, Sanders and Hundley:

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[50] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[50] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[51][52] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[52] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[52] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[53] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[52] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[50] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC).[43] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[43]

Heaven - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Truth does not require your beliefs. You have raised no significant points and have not debunked the known Hellenistic savior deities class, which is a known history.


Understanding the euhemerization aspect would probably require one to read the work of an expert and understand how the arguments are formed. Did you expect that knowledge just flows into your mind without study? Carrier has a long monograph and a short version as well.


Lataster has a long version.


David Litwa also has a work dealing with Jesus as a Greek deity.



Yes, you have been doubling down and repeating claims without evidence and without responding to existing evidence. It seems in lieu of evidence you prefer stating what is true regardless of how little it matches reality.



If you mean the experts are apologists or theology scholars, they are never going to change their opinion.


If you mean historical scholarship, the opinions have largely changed. Your knowledge needs updating, if you care about truth.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

or here:

The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier Blogs

A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript...

www.richardcarrier.info

This demonstrates the peer-reviewed work from several historians, why you continue to think it's all Carrier.....is a mystery?



A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.


The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at researchgate).


So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.


For those who want to understand how this new evidence from Hopper works to produce that conclusion, here is a quick summary:

• (1) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used finite verbs differently than Josephus does.....

There was the religion OF Jesus of Nazareth. After he was gone a new religion ABOUT Jesus replaced his Gospel. This new religion, Christianity draws upon many existing beliefs. Also, it appears that Jesus deliberately patterned aspects of his life and teachings after those existing beliefs outside of Judaism so at to make the Jesus story more appealing to members of other religious beliefs and philosophy. Paul's version of Jesus was more "familiar" to his Pagan audience, hence more adaptable.

Jesus knew that his gospel was going to be rejected by the Israelites!

 

[joelr]

No sir. This is important because this is not the first time you make claims as if they are facts, when they are not.
If you really mean what you say, then say what you mean. The double tongue only tends to deceive, and at the same time, promotes the claim.

My first post on Tacitus, in order:

1st post I just quote scholars opinions, I say nothing.

2nd post:
"
Tacitus is a historian writing this in 116 AD. It doesn't matter if it's authentic or not. Notice how you harp on the fact that Tacitus is the "greatest historian in Roman history", but somehow forget the most obvious fact.
What is he sourcing?
We don't know. Probably some Gospel. Or from a Christian."

Wow, listen to those facts..........."we don't know"..................."probably from..."
Yeah, that is NOT A CLAIM THAT SOUNDS AT ALL like a fact. So you ARE LYING!!!.
How's that DOUBLE TOUNGE working out for you?

I am not interested in when it was written. That's irrelevant.
The point is made, that a... actually, more than one historian mentioned Jesus. That's the point. Fullstop.

BWHAHAHA! First it was this:
"You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars." - nPeace

Now that I point out he's saying it's a harmless/evil superstition, suddenly there is more than one historian. HA!

Oh, fullstop, really? Every historian is possibly referencing information from people who bought into the Gospel narrative. So their information is late and NOT USEFUL to determine anything.
Feel free, name any of them.

First of all, I don't know why you keep singing that tune about the best historian, when no one - not even scholars, said that.

No one? Post # #1,203, by nPeace

• "You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars."

Second, Jesus was human, and I don't know why that's even part of this conversation, since the OP is not about whether or not Jesus was human.
These options are meaningless and irrelevant to this thread.

He was human, or a made up human. Demigod, only in a story.

What does this have to do with this thread?

You are making a claim that Tacitus may confirm Jesus. But he's also talking about the movement of other gods, known fictitious Gods. So his credibility saying that just because he mentions a deity he's correct is blown.

No. Look at the quote again, and follow the discussion, rather than what you are focusing on.
The quote is no different tothe other, as it says in no uncertain terms, that your scholars regard Tacitus as one of the best Roman historians.
I'm digging that point in for @Thrillobyte's benefit, and since you are here....
You see, you are the ones who look to your scholars, and appeal to their authority, so I am making a point that you disregard your scholars on this score. Why?
That is the point of my quotes.

I don't appeal to authority. That is an apologist lie. Meanwhile apologists will appeal to the authority of scripture whenever they feel the need.

I appeal to EVIDENCE. Which scholars can provide and demonstrate why something they say is probably true. With Scripture , you cannot.


Where did I disregard scholars. I posted a quote from Carrier for one. I didn't disagree with it. I agreed with it saying it cannot be used as evidence?

If you were following the discussion, you would know that scholarly opinions do not affect my position, one way or other.

A lie, If historical scholarship confirmed something about your religion you would probably be all about that.
But they don't and you don't care about what is actually true, only what you want to be true so you don't care about the findings of experts.

You think faith beats knowledge yet the history of the world demonstrates otherwise.

Are you talking to yourself now?
What's that all about?

Do you have any arguments, debates, anything interesting and engaging?

You lost me. What does this have to do with historians mentioning Jesus?
Oh wait. Are you now saying he did mention Jesus?
Can we get a straight answer at this point?

Tacitus mentions something like a Jesus, its an evil superstition I guess.

Well there you go. Labelling them as such, in your mind, is the same thing.

Infallable is your word. Misrepresenting, scholars, evidence, positions of people , usual stuff, nothing new.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't see a question?

Did nPeace say that, or did nPeace say that finding the source of a historian is irrelevant - irrelevant to the question of the OP.

We don't know the source.

So, someone claims there is no evidence for Kryptonite, They find some, in a cave. Unless they state the source, the Kryptonite does not exist?

Perfect. I enjoy exposing apologist fallacies. We all need to become good thinkers.

No one found Jesus or Yahweh in a cave. The proper analogy here is someone claims there is no Kryptonite. They find writings from a 2000 year old historian that mentions Kryptonite in a cave. But 2000 years ago people were in a religion that worshipped Kryptonite and they had myths about a cave that contained lots of Kryptonite, So was this historian just repeating the claims of a religious person who believed the cave story? Don't know? But the historian also called the religion "harmless superstition".
So he probably had good inside information it was all B.S.

That's exactly what is being played out here.

read my response. You are a bit off. You just forgot to add logic.

Scientist don't even follow such a clearly biased position, when doing science.
The scientists will say, we have the evidence. It likely came from... However, no honest scientists would dogmatically claim it came from...
They would consider the most likely source, yes.
How often do we read, "likely", "probably", "might have"

Do you mean historians, because scientists don't say that.
And yeah, I'm sure you are fine when historians say, "the Quran was "likely" written by people and not Allah.
Krishna was "probably" a fictive demigod in Hinduism.
Joe Smith "might have" made up all that stuff about an angel named Moroni giving updates on Christianity.
Zeus is "probably" not the real supreme God and his hell "likely" isn't the place everyone goes after death if they don't worship Zeus.

I have a feeling you are perfectly good with that.

Here is what your experts have documented, from collected data. Them... not me.
Sources of Tacitus
For the period from Augustus to Vespasian, Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment. It has been noted that the work of Aufidius Bassus and its continuation by Pliny the Elder covered these years; both historians also treated the German wars. Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus (on Tiberius), Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus (on Nero), and Vipstanus Messalla (on the year 69). He also turned, as far as he felt necessary, to the Senate’s records, the official journal, and such firsthand information as a speech of Claudius, the personal memoirs of Agrippina the Younger, and the military memoirs of the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. For Vespasian’s later years and the reigns of Titus and Domitian, he must have worked more closely from official records and reports.

In the light of his administrative and political experience, Tacitus in the Histories was able to interpret the historical evidence for the Flavian period more or less directly.

It's writen in more than one place... for general public audience.
What do you think about that? Rubbish?

That's great, all of those sources knew Christianity was a "harmless superstition" and was also an "evil superstition" .
That is evidence that backs up historical data.

 

[joelr]

There was the religion OF Jesus of Nazareth. After he was gone a new religion ABOUT Jesus replaced his Gospel. This new religion, Christianity draws upon many existing beliefs. Also, it appears that Jesus deliberately patterned aspects of his life and teachings after those existing beliefs outside of Judaism so at to make the Jesus story more appealing to members of other religious beliefs and philosophy. Paul's version of Jesus was more "familiar" to his Pagan audience, hence more adaptable.

Jesus knew that his gospel was going to be rejected by the Israelites!

You can prove exactly ZERO of that.

All we have is Paul. The 7 authentic Epistles. Paul knew of only a Jesus who was already risen. Killed by Acherons of the Age.

No ministry, teachings, disciples, family, nothing. There are many letters Paul wrote that are suspiciously missing. We also don't know the original canon the Marcionite canon. The current NT is a response canon to the Marcionite canon.

But still, dying/rising demigods who undergo a passion and confer a benefit of salvation and afterlife onto followers was a Hellenistic trend.
Romulus, the savior of Rome, far before Jesus, was also a son of God, death is accompanied by prodigies, land is covered in darkness, corpse goes missing, hero recieves a new body (this was in Paul), there is a "great commission" - instruction to future followers (also in Paul), and many more.
Many of these were in Paul's account of Jesus. So this looks like a trend and religious fiction. No different than the Quran, Hinduism, any of the many Mystery religions inspired by Greek occupation (Israel was occupied by Hellenistic Greeks). All of the nearby nations who were occupied by Hellenistic Greeks underwent a similar change in their religion as well, incorporating some savior deity.

So this is another in this trend, the difference being this religion survived because of Rome.

 

[Colt]

You can prove exactly ZERO of that.

All we have is Paul. The 7 authentic Epistles. Paul knew of only a Jesus who was already risen. Killed by Acherons of the Age.

No ministry, teachings, disciples, family, nothing. There are many letters Paul wrote that are suspiciously missing. We also don't know the original canon the Marcionite canon. The current NT is a response canon to the Marcionite canon.

But still, dying/rising demigods who undergo a passion and confer a benefit of salvation and afterlife onto followers was a Hellenistic trend.
Romulus, the savior of Rome, far before Jesus, was also a son of God, death is accompanied by prodigies, land is covered in darkness, corpse goes missing, hero recieves a new body (this was in Paul), there is a "great commission" - instruction to future followers (also in Paul), and many more.
Many of these were in Paul's account of Jesus. So this looks like a trend and religious fiction. No different than the Quran, Hinduism, any of the many Mystery religions inspired by Greek occupation (Israel was occupied by Hellenistic Greeks). All of the nearby nations who were occupied by Hellenistic Greeks underwent a similar change in their religion as well, incorporating some savior deity.

So this is another in this trend, the difference being this religion survived because of Rome.

No proof but it changed the entire world!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who determines what are immoral beliefs?

We each do, even those who accept somebody else's definitions of good and bad, right and wrong.

God is the master of forgiveness

Not by my understanding of either "God" or forgiveness. "God" is the tri-omni deity of Abraham, who keeps souls that it seeks revenge on for disobedience conscious after death to punish them with gratuitous suffering. There is no appeal to this verdict, and no pardon. Who else does that remind you of - a mortal, who would love that power to exercise vengeance on all who disobey his commands, who also has no idea what forgiveness means?

I think you are overstating what I said. I simply said he was not just "ordinary", just some bloke. His impact created a movement, which of course escalated due to the influences of others. Recall I gave that stone to avalanche analogy? Right person, right place and time. It wasn't all him personally. Of course not.

Yes, and I rebutted that. You say or imply that Jesus' words and actions were so exemplary that a world religion formed because of them. That's what "right person" implies. That would be HIS impact. On the other hand, he might also be only in the right place at the right time, and PAUL was the right person in the same place at a slightly later time, and then Constantine. That would be THEIR impact. We only need look at their source material to discern which it is. Paul picked the story of a largely unknown unknown at the time of his death itinerant preacher with a small following and a typical religious message - be kind and be pious. If you want to rebut that, it will need to be with evidence that Jesus was the impetus for the religion named after him, not another statement that he must have been impactful since the story told about him impacted the world, since that simply need not be correct.

I've mentioned this already. If you are correct, you can produce this evidence. If you are incorrect, you cannot. I'm reminded of the recent news, where Hershman and Cipollone headed off Giuliani and Powell in the White House trying to get voting machines seized by the military and claiming to have hard evidence of election fraud. The good guys kept insisting on seeing it before acting, which never happened. Produce your supporting evidence. The matter is settled until you do.

The ideal of what he represents, what he symbolizes, which is the nature of the Divine in all of us. The ideal human. "Love your neighbor as yourself". "Love works no ill". The goal is that we are to become the Christ ourselves. "I live, and yet not I but Christ", and such language.

I asked, "Christians call Jesus' life exemplary, so much so that many define Christian as being Christlike, but why?" I don't know how to communicate to you that comments like yours immediately above don't satisfy my request for evidence. Why is that good advice in your estimation? I don't take or recommend it. What are you claiming that I am missing out on by not continuing to do as I have always done? I need something more concrete than lofty language.

Do you accept the Buddhist idea of Enlightenment?

No. I don't know much of what Buddha taught.

That actually doesn't sound like Jesus. That sounds like fundamentalist Christians.

Preachy and judgmental, and detached from reality doesn't sound like Jesus to you? It sounds like Jesus to me. Be more like this, do more of that, and deflect your gaze from the world to a place we promise exists run by with a god that we promise exists who you need to please.

I see Love as unconditional.

I don't, and consider that bad advice, too.

It's not unconditional for the Old Testament deity, either, although I find the standards imputed to it as described by its scriptures and adherents for who deserves to be dropped through the trap door inadequate and immoral.

I am separating having a loving compassion to all, from personal trust relationships.

I don't know why you keep coming back to trust. The reason I don't love enemies is not because I don't trust them. I've told you this. I don't like them. I don't want to see them. I don't want to hear their voices. I don't care what they want or think.

I don't trust those who are a threat to me. But I can have compassion in my heart towards them, rather than harboring hatred. That is what "love your enemies" really means. I've explained this.

And you keep coming back to harboring hatred. How about speaking to me, who doesn't hate his enemies, either? Is there anything you want to tell me about why I should love enemies given that that doesn't mean hating them in my case?

This is beginning to sound like the discussions with some who can't conceive of a middle ground between believing god exist and the belief that they don't, one of agnosticism. There is also a place between loving and hating called indifference. And since you have mentioned trust a few times now, there is also an agnostic place between trust and distrust - I don't have enough experience yet with the individual to have an informed opinion on the matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LoL! The man that they say didn't exist has had more influence over the world than any other man that has ever existed! ​

Santa Claus?

 

[Colt]

Santa Claus?

 

[Thrillobyte]

LoL! The man that they say didn't exist has had more influence over the world than any other man that has ever existed! ​

Thank Constantine and Theodosius for that. Had they not come along the obscure backwater abomination called Christianity would have disappeared 1500 years ago.

 

[Colt]

Thank Constantine and Theodosius for that. Had they not come along the obscure backwater abomination called Christianity would have disappeared 1500 years ago.

If not them then someone else. The spirit of truth that Christ poured out upon all truth seekers continued to work then and now.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Did nPeace say that, or did nPeace say that finding the source of a historian is irrelevant - irrelevant to the question of the OP.

So, someone claims there is no evidence for Kryptonite, They find some, in a cave. Unless they state the source, the Kryptonite does not exist?
That's exactly what is being played out here.

Scientist don't even follow such a clearly biased position, when doing science.
The scientists will say, we have the evidence. It likely came from... However, no honest scientists would dogmatically claim it came from...
They would consider the most likely source, yes.
How often do we read, "likely", "probably", "might have"

Here is what your experts have documented, from collected data. Them... not me.
Sources of Tacitus
For the period from Augustus to Vespasian, Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment. It has been noted that the work of Aufidius Bassus and its continuation by Pliny the Elder covered these years; both historians also treated the German wars. Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus (on Tiberius), Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus (on Nero), and Vipstanus Messalla (on the year 69). He also turned, as far as he felt necessary, to the Senate’s records, the official journal, and such firsthand information as a speech of Claudius, the personal memoirs of Agrippina the Younger, and the military memoirs of the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. For Vespasian’s later years and the reigns of Titus and Domitian, he must have worked more closely from official records and reports.

In the light of his administrative and political experience, Tacitus in the Histories was able to interpret the historical evidence for the Flavian period more or less directly.

It's writen in more than one place... for general public audience.
What do you think about that? Rubbish?

That's all you've got. You say "Tacitus drew on this guy and that guy and the other guy over there" but you don't say for what in particular, and you never mention the tacitus Christians passage in association with these guys. As I said, you're just making a feeble attempt to link a bunch of earlier Roman writers who never mentioned Jesus to Tacitus without any direct quotes from them about Jesus that we can prove for a fact Tacitus drew upon for his own description of the Christians and Chrestus. But that's what Christians do when they haven't anything substantive to prove their arguments--they just use vague innuendo and employ smoke and mirrors to try to prove something that isn't there.

I will defer to joelr's superb response to you. Read it again and this time contemplate it if you can:

You thought wrong. Go back to your post

• #1,203

and look at your words. You are directly implying that since Tacitus is "widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars." his quote is NOT " just 200th-hand hearsay likely gotten from stories he heard Christians repeating in Rome." but actual proper historical information.

So, yes, you are actually doing the exact thing you are now pretending you are not. YOu are using those credentials about Tacitus to say he is correct and is presenting information about Jesus that is extra-biblical and "a threat to atheist worldviews".

1) Jesus was a human Rabbi mythicized into a Greek deity because that was the trend going around.

2). Jesus was completely a mythical person/demigod to give Judaism a Greek deity because that was the local trend.

 

[Thrillobyte]

If not them then someone else. The spirit of truth that Christ poured out upon all truth seekers continued to work then and now.

Why not Jesus himself? He could appear right this moment and every atheist in the world would disappear overnight. We'd all be believers. Isn't that what God the father wants--for everyone to believe in Jesus?

 

[nPeace]

My first post on Tacitus, in order:

1st post I just quote scholars opinions, I say nothing.

2nd post:
"
Tacitus is a historian writing this in 116 AD. It doesn't matter if it's authentic or not. Notice how you harp on the fact that Tacitus is the "greatest historian in Roman history", but somehow forget the most obvious fact.

Notice how you keep repeating that false statement, as if you think it will win you something.
No one said that... just you repeating the words, like 50 times now.

What is he sourcing?
We don't know. Probably some Gospel. Or from a Christian."

Sounds like the kind of thing you accuse Christians of. We don't know how the universe began, but probably Goddidit.

Wow, listen to those facts..........."we don't know"..................."probably from..."
Yeah, that is NOT A CLAIM THAT SOUNDS AT ALL like a fact. So you ARE LYING!!!.
How's that DOUBLE TOUNGE working out for you?

Where have you been living?
There are thousands of examples of this, but I will give just one.
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
Most scientists agree that, as with many other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely derived from a bat-borne virus transmitted to humans in a natural setting.
In July 2022, two papers published in Science described novel epidemiological and genetic evidence that suggested the pandemic likely began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and did not come from a laboratory.

That's public knowledge.
When scientists don't know, they make suggestions of what is likely.

...and in case you are not aware, it's against the rules of this forum to call any member a liar, or accuse them of lying.
The next time, I will report it.

BWHAHAHA! First it was this:
"You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars." - nPeace

Now that I point out he's saying it's a harmless/evil superstition, suddenly there is more than one historian. HA!

Please follow the discussion, and consider the context of what is said.
Isolating statement and focusing on that, as a basis of your argument is meaningless.
If I said, whale evolution is regarded as the best evidence for the theory of evolution, would you think I believed it, or was using it as a basis for a belief?
if you ignore the context, certainly you would, but that would show you didn't care what I was actually saying, but cared only about looking for something you could try to argue against... wouldn't it.

Oh, fullstop, really? Every historian is possibly referencing information from people who bought into the Gospel narrative. So their information is late and NOT USEFUL to determine anything.
Feel free, name any of them.

Well according to what's staring you in the face, this is just a whole lot of flap.
The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records, and none of this is evidence?

Even the critics' most loved scholar, professor Bart Ehrman says the collection of snippets from non-Christian sources - Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome; Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews; Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan - may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.” Yet the critic would fight tooth and nail, to deny such. Triple Lol.

Seems the critics have convenient times for evidence.

No one? Post # #1,203, by nPeace

• "You got a direct quote from a historian - one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars."

I don't wear glasses. Not sure if you do, but that doesn't say the the best historian.
It says... one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.

Moreover, the bold clearly does not say nPeace thinks Tacitus is the best historian.
Maybe it has nothing to do with vision. Thinking ability? Honesty? The ability to listen to, and follow a discussion?
I don't know. You tell me.

He was human, or a made up human. Demigod, only in a story.

Made up human? No. Not according to the records on hand.
Demigod in the story? Which story? Certainly not the Biblical account. No.

You are making a claim that Tacitus may confirm Jesus.

Never did I make such a claim. You are claiming that I made that claim. That's not true.

But he's also talking about the movement of other gods, known fictitious Gods. So his credibility saying that just because he mentions a deity he's correct is blown.

Irrelevant, and has nothing to do with me, or this thread.
Oh, I see. You create imaginary arguments to argue against.

I don't appeal to authority. That is an apologist lie. Meanwhile apologists will appeal to the authority of scripture whenever they feel the need.

I appeal to EVIDENCE. Which scholars can provide and demonstrate why something they say is probably true. With Scripture , you cannot.

Your posts on this thread says otherwise. ...and I believe that's why you haven't answered my question.

Where did I disregard scholars. I posted a quote from Carrier for one. I didn't disagree with it. I agreed with it saying it cannot be used as evidence?

Carrier as in singular?

I'm talking about scholars, and you are telling me about one. Lol

A lie, If historical scholarship confirmed something about your religion you would probably be all about that.

Hmm. Seems you are just blurting out stuff, with no clear basis for doing so.
Something is not a lie, if you attach a probability to it.
For example, the judge would question both your credibility, and education, if you, in court said, "Thats a lie Donald Trump! You probably stole the money!"

Yes, I know, one tends to get all emotional when they don't want to accept something they don't want to believe, and spent years arguing against.

But they don't and you don't care about what is actually true, only what you want to be true so you don't care about the findings of experts.

You know nothing about me, so your slander is meaningless... especially as the discussion is not about me.

You think faith beats knowledge yet the history of the world demonstrates otherwise.

How can you possibly think that, when faith follows knowledge. Faith cannot exist without knowledge, so you either don't know what you are saying, or you are just blurting out your feeling... which in either case, is basically the same thing.

Do you have any arguments, debates, anything interesting and engaging?

Always. Do you?

I don't see a question?

You did.

 

[lukethethird]

Notice how you keep repeating that false statement, as if you think it will win you something.
No one said that... just you repeating the words, like 50 times now.


Sounds like the kind of thing you accuse Christians of. We don't know how the universe began, but probably Goddidit.


Where have you been living?
There are thousands of examples of this, but I will give just one.
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
Most scientists agree that, as with many other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely derived from a bat-borne virus transmitted to humans in a natural setting.
In July 2022, two papers published in Science described novel epidemiological and genetic evidence that suggested the pandemic likely began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and did not come from a laboratory.

That's public knowledge.
When scientists don't know, they make suggestions of what is likely.

...and in case you are not aware, it's against the rules of this forum to call any member a liar, or accuse them of lying.
The next time, I will report it.


Please follow the discussion, and consider the context of what is said.
Isolating statement and focusing on that, as a basis of your argument is meaningless.
If I said, whale evolution is regarded as the best evidence for the theory of evolution, would you think I believed it, or was using it as a basis for a belief?
if you ignore the context, certainly you would, but that would show you didn't care what I was actually saying, but cared only about looking for something you could try to argue against... wouldn't it.


Well according to what's staring you in the face, this is just a whole lot of flap.
The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records, and none of this is evidence?

Even the critics' most loved scholar, professor Bart Ehrman says the collection of snippets from non-Christian sources - Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome; Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews; Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan - may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.” Yet the critic would fight tooth and nail, to deny such. Triple Lol.

Seems the critics have convenient times for evidence.

I don't wear glasses. Not sure if you do, but that doesn't say the the best historian.
It says... one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.

Moreover, the bold clearly does not say nPeace thinks Tacitus is the best historian.
Maybe it has nothing to do with vision. Thinking ability? Honesty? The ability to listen to, and follow a discussion?
I don't know. You tell me.


Made up human? No. Not according to the records on hand.
Demigod in the story? Which story? Certainly not the Biblical account. No.


Never did I make such a claim. You are claiming that I made that claim. That's not true.


Irrelevant, and has nothing to do with me, or this thread.
Oh, I see. You create imaginary arguments to argue against.


Your posts on this thread says otherwise. ...and I believe that's why you haven't answered my question.


Carrier as in singular?

I'm talking about scholars, and you are telling me about one. Lol


Hmm. Seems you are just blurting out stuff, with no clear basis for doing so.
Something is not a lie, if you attach a probability to it.
For example, the judge would question both your credibility, and education, if you, in court said, "Thats a lie Donald Trump! You probably stole the money!"

Yes, I know, one tends to get all emotional when they don't want to accept something they don't want to believe, and spent years arguing against.


You know nothing about me, so your slander is meaningless... especially as the discussion is not about me.


How can you possibly think that, when faith follows knowledge. Faith cannot exist without knowledge, so you either don't know what you are saying, or you are just blurting out your feeling... which in either case, is basically the same thing.


Always. Do you?


You did.

Relying on what one writer said one hundreds years after the setting of the story to say it is real, how pathetic is that?

 

[Trailblazer]

LoL! The man that they say didn't exist has had more influence over the world than any other man that has ever existed! ​

Ironic isn't it?

 

[lukethethird]

Ironic isn't it?

No, it's a logical fallacy, called the bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

We each do, even those who accept somebody else's definitions of good and bad, right and wrong.

We each do in the sense that ewe each have to make our own moral choices, but that does not mean all the choices everyone makes can be considered "good." Does a murderer or a rapist make good moral choices?

Not by my understanding of either "God" or forgiveness. "God" is the tri-omni deity of Abraham, who keeps souls that it seeks revenge on for disobedience conscious after death to punish them with gratuitous suffering. There is no appeal to this verdict, and no pardon. Who else does that remind you of - a mortal, who would love that power to exercise vengeance on all who disobey his commands, who also has no idea what forgiveness means?

That is the Christian understanding but it is not what I go by since I am not a Christian. According to the Baha'i Faith, God is the Ever-Forgiving.

“Thy loving providence hath encompassed all created things in the heavens and on the earth, and Thy forgiveness hath surpassed the whole creation. Thine is sovereignty; in Thy hand are the Kingdoms of Creation and Revelation; in Thy right hand Thou holdest all created things and within Thy grasp are the assigned measures of forgiveness. Thou forgivest whomsoever among Thy servants Thou pleasest. Verily Thou art the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Loving. Nothing whatsoever escapeth Thy knowledge, and naught is there which is hidden from Thee.”​

Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p. 178​

I don't think God should forgive some people such as hardened criminals who caused so much suffering for others, since I don't think they deserve forgiveness, but I am not God, so if God pleases to forgive them He will forgive them. According to my understanding of the Baha'i scriptures, there is nothing to forgive atheists for since they did not do anything wrong.