Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[joelr]

How many of them think this means Jesus never existed? Why not go with the experts there too?

The historicity of Jesus is not their specialty/

The experts disagree on all kinds of things, yet are overwhelming in their consensus in this.

Yes and they are all in agreement about the Mystery religions and the changes Hellenism brought to all of them, including Christianity.

Tolkien influenced the fantasy genre and was a devout Catholic.

That doesn’t mean modern writers who use his tropes are necessarily imitating him let alone adopting his religious sensibilities.

If you had a story about an evil being who made 9 rings, with one to control them all and 2 small farmers went on a quest to throw the ring in the volcano to end it's reign and ability to influence people. You can say they borrowed from Tolkien.

Of course Christianity was influenced by Hellenism, it would be miraculous if it had not been.

That is what scholars say.

This says nothing about Jesus’ likely existence.

Are we back to mythicism? Why?

You say carrier is just saying what experts say, yet basically none of these experts agree with his overall opinion that Jesus almost certainly never existed. But

I mean about Hellenism and Persian influences.

IF you read his book you will see he is taking assumptions and putting them to the test. Other scholars have not done that.
Then Lataster did it and found the same results.

 

[joelr]

Why accept their explanation, when there can be many others?

Because it's backed with EVIDENCE. Of course you would suggest we can freely make upo whatever conclusion we want. Not how scholarship is done. You go by evidence.

If you read the book, you can keep notes on every reason and all evidence and explain, with sources why you don't agree.

The fact that you are making judgments without having any idea of the work is bizarre.

I think it is not true that all of them have done exactly the same.

Yes, all nations had their own mythology. It differed in some ways, each nation held an identity through their myths.

That is why Israel re-wrote older mytghs and upgraded them for Yahweh, to make him appear better.

A scholar who sees things only in one way is not in my opinion worth to be called a scholar.

Every scholar I have read presents the most probable evidence. They don't see obvious copyings from Mesopotamia, Persia, Greek, then try to come up with some ridiculous apologetics. They report what they find.

You are using special pleading you would not do for anything else.

Also you haven't read any scholars work, so you have zero idea of what you are even talking about.

It says the word was God, not Jesus was the God.

And Bible says, things were created through Jesus. That means, he was a mediator.

Once again, "the Bible says". All religions have a book tyat says stuff. None of it is real.

It is contradictory only if you don't understand it correctly.

Right, a Bible specialist doesn't understand it correctly.
Ehrman has a whole book on contradictions, read it tell me where he is wrong.

Jesus Interrupted – Revealing The Hidden Contradictions In The Bible And Why We Don’t Know About Them Bart D. Ehrman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bart D. Ehrman

archive.org

And that is also what the Bible says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

/yes but a full human, no magic super powers. No resurrection.

What is Grego-Roman type deity?

All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed

There is a specific type of baptism, a communal meal which symbollically taking part of grants you something


and here is a more detailes list:


The Savior-God Mytheme


Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.


The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.

I think it is important to know what is the difference.

/then study Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, look up Brahman from different sources.

Go to the Vendanta society channel and listen to his talks, one is -

 

[joelr]

Sorry, you are not, you are providing claims that are based on faulty reasoning.

I'm sticking with the vast majority of scholars, they have by far the most reasonable evidence. You have nothing but claims.

I have given you long lists of things that are exactly like things from the Bible, from older cultures and you still pretend like there is fault with this, yet you can't show it.

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to yourself for leaving behind what is likely true to believe a mythical story with no evidence.

So, it is not actually Hellenistic, but Egyptian influence you meant?

Yes one of the savior cults was Egyptian BUT IT WAS HELLENIZED. So, like Judaism, it took on the traits of Hellenistic theology, all of them did. So it was originally pure Egyptian and then when the Greek colonists invaded they took on the same traits as all the others.

Which changes the religion in predictable ways, such as:


-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

Actually, it maybe true that some Christians have adopted pagan ideas and even statues. I don't think it has anything to do with the real Christianity, which is the teachings of Jesus.

Funny, you are able to agree with one thing because it doesn't threaten your beliefs.

I can agree with that. The Christianity what Jesus taught is Jewish, I think 100 % pure Jewish.

Then you are living in a fantasy land where you could care less about what is true. That is your option.

Can you give one example what do you mean with that?

See the list I provided. Those elements were incorporated into the Osirus religion. Then see the longer list, those elements were incorporated into the Osirus religion.
Just like they were incorporated into the Jewish mystery religion.

Please tell, what exactly is borrowed?

From Romulus,

Romulus

1- The hero son of god

2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies

3 - The land is covered in darkness

4- The heroes corpse goes missing

5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had

6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance

7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city

8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending

9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses

10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)

11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body

12 - He is taken up into a cloud

13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)

14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance

15 - Some witnesses flee

16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts

17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city

18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death

19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing

20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)

Even if people could make those claims about anyone, why would it make Jesus not true?

Because this is excellent evidence that these stories are all local religions who encountered Greek occupation and used these popular religious myths to make their version of the savior cult.

Jesus may have been a Rabbi who was made a demigod savior in a story, sure.

Also, i think one has greatly m misunderstood the Bible, if he thinks Christianity is about superficial matters.

No one said any such thing. But the theology used can be any savior figure and wisdom from the religion.

We already saw the evidence that all of the teachings of Jesus are just re-worked Rabbi Hillel sayings and Proverbs is a typical wisdom document among all the other Near Eastern religions.

 

[joelr]

And by what they wrote and said, I don't believe Jews copied their ideas from others.

Besides that it's the consensus in history that they certainly did:


-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.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] 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.[47] 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).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]



only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it (Hell) would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven


Kaiser, Christopher B

Besides that the massive apologetic Christian Encyclopaedia states it does, and apologists would never fully admit this, they had to:



Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible
by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923


"We must conclude with the following guarded thesis. There is in the circle of ideas in the NT, in addition to what is new, and what is taken over from Judaism, much that is Greek ; but whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed at a complete fusion of Hellenism and Judaism, is, in the most important cases, not to be determined.



And

Apocalypticism, by all sources, is from Persian myth.

Apocalypticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[1] This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.[1] Apocalypticism is one aspect of eschatology in certain religions—the part of theology concerned with the final events of world history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, etc.).[2]


The religious versions of these views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of humanity; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth.[3] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]




from Encyclopaedia Biblica -


We feel that we have moved more out of a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere


in the Pastoral Kpistles, in Hebrews— which is beyond doubt dependent both in form and in contents on the Alexandrians (e.g. , 131814) — and in the Catholic Epistles ; the Epistle of James, even if, with Spitta, we should class it with the Jewish writings, must have had for its author a man with a Greek education. Tt was a born Greek that wrote Acts. If his Hellenic character does not find very marked expression it is merely due to the nature of his work ; no pure Jew would have uttered the almost pantheistic -sounding sentence, ' in God we live and move and have our being' (1723). In the Fourth Gospel, finally, the influence of Greek philosophy is incontestable. Not only is the Logos, which plays so important a part in the prologue (Ii-i8), of Greek origin ; the gnosticising tendency of John, his enthusiasm for ' the truth ' (svithout genitive), his dualism (God and the world almost treated as absolute antithesis), his predilection for abstractions, compel us to regard the author, Jew by birth as he certainly was, as strongly under the influence of Hellenic ideas. Here again, however, we must leave open the possibility that these Greek elements reached him through the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ; just as little can his Logos theory have originated independently of Philo, as the figure of the Paraclete in chaps. 14-16 (see J. ReVille, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme Evangile,. Paris, '81). Cp JOHN [SON OK ZKBEDEE], § 31.



It's not doubted in scholarship. I also gave you several Yale Divinity lectures on what was borrowed from other nations.
So you are just going in circles now. I don't care what you believe. I care about the evidence, the scholarship, and how they provide evidence to back their claims. I don't care if you refuse to have an open mind. There are always fundamentalists in every religion who will ignore all else and say they are correct and anything that gose against them is false. Not interested in hearing delusions over and over.

Show evidence or I'm going to skip over delusional claims and spend my time reading about people who care about what is true and have evidence to support their knowledge. You haven't explained why Boyce or John Collins or James TAbor has these long lists of Greek ideas and you think they were not borrowed, yet were never in the Bible until after they lived with these cultures for centuries. If you actually looked at these videos you would probably realize you sound bizarre saying these things. I'm all set with claims without evidence based on wishful thinking.

 

[1213]

Because it's backed with EVIDENCE. Of course you would suggest we can freely make upo whatever conclusion we want. Not how scholarship is done. You go by evidence.

If you would go by the evidence, you would say you don't know.

That is why Israel re-wrote older mytghs and upgraded them for Yahweh, to make him appear better.

I think it is wrong to make baseless accusations.

Every scholar I have read presents the most probable evidence. They don't see obvious copyings from Mesopotamia, Persia, Greek, then try to come up with some ridiculous apologetics. They report what they find.

I think your argument is like a man saying, "after walking 500 miles, I conclude earth is 500 miles wide".

Ehrman has a whole book on contradictions, read it tell me where he is wrong.

I am sure you can't found there even one real contradiction. If you disagree, please show the biggest contradiction you can find.

All Mystery religions have personal savior deities

Is there some mystery in Bible? What it is?

...they would have described the entire Christian religion...

Only if one does not know what is said in the Bible.

 

[1213]

I have given you long lists of things that are exactly like things from the Bible, from older cultures and you still pretend like there is fault with this, yet you can't show it.

The fault is:
1) Older found is not necessary the oldest.
2) The dating of scriptures can be wrong.
3) People can have similar ideas without copying.
4) Similarity doesn't mean that the matter is not true.

Romulus

1- The hero son of god

2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies

3 - The land is covered in darkness

4- The heroes corpse goes missing

5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had

6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance

7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city

8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending

9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses

10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)

11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body

12 - He is taken up into a cloud

13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)

14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance

15 - Some witnesses flee

16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts

17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city

18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death

19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing

20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)

The reason why I believe it is more likely that people copied from Jesus those things is that there is only the external matters, not the internal matters. With internal matters I mean the teachings of Jesus. All what you list are actually meaningless, without the deeper ideas. The greatness of Jesus comes from what he said. Romulus doesn't seem to have any meaningful teachings, which is why I think he is not the paragon of Jesus.

We already saw the evidence that all of the teachings of Jesus are just re-worked Rabbi Hillel sayings

Apparently you didn't read my answers.

 

[1213]

Besides that it's the consensus in history that they certainly did:

The consensus has been many times wrong. I rather take solid evidence and proof.

-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.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] 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.[47] 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).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

I think those claims show person doesn't know the Bible.

only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it (Hell) would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven

Biblical idea is that unrighteous will die and righteous will live. That idea comes from the beginning of the Bible. I don't think it is later addition.

Apocalypticism, by all sources, is from Persian myth.

Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[1] This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.[1] Apocalypticism is one aspect of eschatology in certain religions—the part of theology concerned with the final events of world history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, etc.).[2]

The religious versions of these views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of humanity; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth.[3] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]

I get the feeling you don't read my answers, but I want to say again, similar ideas doesn't necessary mean they are copied. There is a good Biblical reason to think Persians were affected by Bible God and that could explain why Persians also had similar ideas.

 

[Augustus]

The historicity of Jesus is not their specialty/

They are experts who have studied related areas for decades. Yet basically none of them have thought his existence was significantly in doubt based on their studies.

Yes and they are all in agreement about the Mystery religions and the changes Hellenism brought to all of them, including Christianity.

No. Most agree that Christianity is a product of its time and place. Whether it should be classified as a "mystery religion" is debatable. Whether similarities are a result of direct causation/imitation, parallel development or simply reflect common cultural tropes is very debated.

Hellenistic influences say nothing meaningful about the existence of Jesus though. Gods could be both real people of entirely mythical.

If you had a story about an evil being who made 9 rings, with one to control them all and 2 small farmers went on a quest to throw the ring in the volcano to end it's reign and ability to influence people. You can say they borrowed from Tolkien.

There are countless stories based on the "heroes journey" archetype. That simply reflects common tropes. Many authors will not even be consciously using the structure, let alone deliberately copying any particular example of it.

Countless fantasy stories with mining dwarves, elegant elves, magical artefacts and other common tropes.

Once things become common tropes, you cannot assume anyone using them is directly copying any other specific text that uses them.

Once things become part of a common culture, we can identify examples of things which draw from the same cultural wellspring, but assuming there must be causative relations between any specific examples is fallacious.

IF you read his book you will see he is taking assumptions and putting them to the test. Other scholars have not done that.

No. He's simply inventing probabilities that reflect his own opinions. These probabilities are made up.

He is outlining his thinking same as any argument that doesn't assign subjective personal probabilities to unique events that have no innate probabilistic foundations.

There are 3 issues I know of where Carrier is out of step with an overwhelming scholarly consensus (Hitler’s religious views, the history of science and Mythicism) and out of step in exactly a manner that matches his ideological beliefs.

If we are assigning probabilities, the odds certainly don’t favour him being correct and the diverse experts of all ideological persuasions being wrong.

 

[GoodAttention]

They are experts who have studied related areas for decades. Yet basically none of them have thought his existence was significantly in doubt based on their studies.

Its because the "experts" are all Christians and they get paid by the church so they ain't doubting Jesus existence.

No. Most agree that Christianity is a product of its time and place. Whether it should be classified as a "mystery religion" is debatable. Whether similarities are a result of direct causation/imitation, parallel development or simply reflect common cultural tropes is very debated.

Hellenistic influences say nothing meaningful about the existence of Jesus though. Gods could be both real people of entirely mythical.

Local influences are far more important, such as the Hashmoneans and Macabees, the Essenes, the Zealots, Jewish revolt, Temple seige, Temple destruction.

 

[Augustus]

Its because the "experts" are all Christians and they get paid by the church so they ain't doubting Jesus existence.

Hmmm...

Historians of that era are from all backgrounds and are generally paid by the universities they work for.

Local influences are far more important, such as the Hashmoneans and Macabees, the Essenes, the Zealots, Jewish revolt, Temple seige, Temple destruction.

The Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds are both important in the cultural climate of the world that Christianity (gradually) emerged from

 

[GoodAttention]

Hmmm...

Historians of that era are from all backgrounds and are generally paid by the universities they work for.

Carrier is one of the good examples, but even he worked for Christian Fellowship International, Partners for Secular Activism, and is a member of Westar Institute,

"Since its founding in 1986, Westar has conducted a series of innovative seminars on the historical Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles, the apostle Paul, and other topics. Currently, Westar scholars are conducting seminars on the origins of the Christian tradition, on God and the human future, and on the Christ of the people as a liberating metaphor."

Most of the sources that were relied upon historically come from academics within church universities.

It is very rare to have a person from a secular or ideally atheist background who works solely at a public or reputable university.

The Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds are both important in the cultural climate of the world that Christianity (gradually) emerged from

Of course, they were the to be converted so the message had to be given so to be received.

But he had to exist in the Jewish world for it to happen.

 

[Augustus]

It is very rare to have a person from a secular or ideally atheist background who works solely at a public or reputable university.

In which country do you think this is true?

Historians come from all kinds of backgrounds in most western countries.

 

[GoodAttention]

In which country do you think this is true?

Historians come from all kinds of backgrounds in most western countries.

Historians come from multiple background and every country, they are pivotal in keeping the record of humanity, and it is a respected field today.

Unfortunately the past is a different matter, particularly with the Greeks and Romans given there weren't many of them, and they often put each other down.

So do we have independent records of a man named Jesus at the time he was said to exist? No, other than what the church tells us retrospectively.

 

[Augustus]

So do we have independent records of a man named Jesus at the time he was said to exist? No, other than what the church tells us retrospectively.

We have a variety of near contemporary textual sources that predate “the church”.

Historians have to make do with what exists.

Pretty much all ancient writers were in the pay of someone or had a role in society that made them significantly biased.

People generally weren’t writing “objective” history at any point prior to modernity.

In classical antiquity historical narratives were frequently confected to make a moral or political point, yet they are all we have to work with on any topic.

Much of our knowledge of the Persian Empire, one of the most consequential of all empires comes from the writings of their enemies.

So we would know very little if we couldn’t use any sources with any potential biases.

 

[GoodAttention]

We have a variety of near contemporary textual sources that predate “the church”.

Really? Who/which/when?

 

[Augustus]

Really? Who/which/when?

When do you think “the church” started to exist?

 

[GoodAttention]

When do you think “the church” started to exist?

When I referred to church I meant the biblical canon, so by this I would have to go by when Paul's oldest letter is dated to.

 

[Augustus]

When I referred to church I meant the biblical canon, so by this I would have to go by when Paul's oldest letter is dated to.

Fair enough, I’d put it later than that but it’s somewhat subjective.

Regardless, ancient historians have to work with problematic texts no matter what the topic is.

 

[GoodAttention]

Fair enough, I’d put it later than that but it’s somewhat subjective.

Regardless, ancient historians have to work with problematic texts no matter what the topic is.

We seem to be jumping past the contemporary sources you mentioned regarding evidence for Jesus?

 

[Augustus]

We seem to be jumping past the contemporary sources you mentioned regarding evidence for Jesus?

Near contemporary and pre church is what I said.

Paul, Gospels, Josephus, etc. The usual ones.