Jesus would have tweeted like Trump.

[TSO]

That depends on what YOU call evidence and how ignorant you want to be. IF you take non christian pagan historians writing about Jesus as evidence (scholars do) then there IS evidence. If you do not take pagan historians at and near the time of Jesus as evidence then tell me why you believe ANY accounts of these times not related to Jesus. Do you also say there is NO evidence that Cesar existed? IF not why?

There's not a single first hand account of Jesus ever. So there's no evidence.

Do you have special evidence no one else has privy to?

If I were making a positive claim of any kind I'd have some. I don't need any to point out there's been none here.

 

[franklinstower]

The Caesar-Jesus claims, about similar evidence for their existence, are more like a kind of folklore/gossip and they take many forms. One of the variations is that there is the same evidence for Caesar crossing the Rubicon as there is for Jesus rising from the dead. It's good to be skeptical of claims like that. The hole left by removing Caesar from physical history is gigantic, while removing Jesus from physical history leaves basically no hole at all- there absolutely had to have been a Caesar, but there did not have to be a Jesus. We have many contemporary accounts of Julius Caesar, and zero of Jesus. I'll even apologize for that by saying that we shouldn't expect there to be much evidence of Jesus.

Thank you for presupposing the laws of physics and not bothering with the magical stuff, I really do appreciate that kind of honesty, because it exposes your views to verifiable claims.

If I had to bet the house, I'd bet it on Jesus not existing, but I wouldn't want to make that bet. This is where I ask: "If no miracles, then what Jesus are we left with?" And that's a very important question, because the answer to it greatly affects the probability of his existence. If we're left with a Jesus who went around stirring up a little trouble and was executed in a small group lost to history, and later revived in religion by a cultist, then it's not crazy at all to believe that happened. But if we're talking about whip-the-temple Jesus and a roaring crowd of Jews calling for his head, and Pilate breaking character, well, that is not nearly as believable or likely.

What is the minimum historical Jesus that counts as "Jesus?" I really don't see that bar being cleared by Josephus, for instance.

For me, the best argument from evidence is that we know Pilate existed, in exactly the right time and place. Not only do we have the scriptural and early historical references, but we also have the best physical evidence we could hope for, found in Israel in modern times ("Pilate Stone"). I assume it's not a clever fake. Since we have Pilate, and scripture got him right, that helps the chances (a little, not a lot) that a Jesus was executed under his authority.

My bet for the "prehistoric" rise of Christianity is cultism and astrology, especially as a response to mysteries (and depicting the turning of the age), and apocryphal stories that coalesced in a mixture of truth and myth. In other words, I think our Jesus is dissolved in the soup.

If you read my posts on this subject you will see that I only ever argued for the Jesus of history -- at least on this thread.

You seem to know a lot about history from your post and this is going to cause me to do a lot of research. It is not that I haven't all ready its just that it is confusing to me that anyone who knows history from that period is still denying the physical existence of Jesus. There is a lot written of him by people in his own day who have no dog in the race......

What would be the motive for a respected pagan historian accounting of Jesus, his reputation as healer and religious leader but also presenting him a bit negatively? For me these accounts settle totally the.question of his real historical existence.

It is interesting that Dawkins concedes this point and admits to Jesus existence in a debate with Lennox the mathematician Christian.

If there was no historical Jesus.why would a pagan historian in his day.write of him as a real person?

 

[franklinstower]

There's not a single first hand account of Jesus ever. So there's no evidence.


If I were making a positive claim of any kind I'd have some. I don't need any to point out there's been none here.

Do you discount pagan historians in the time of Jesus who say he existed?

Can you say why you do?

 

[TSO]

Do you discount pagan historians in the time of Jesus who say he existed?

there's none that do but I would if they had no evidence.

Can you say why you do?

evidence, if you have none, it didn't happen.

 

[franklinstower]

there's none that do but I would if they had no evidence.

evidence, if you have none, it didn't happen.

there's none that do but I would if they had no evidence.

evidence, if you have none, it didn't happen.

You have made a positive claim that there are no historical accounts of Jesus. Please defend this positive claim you have made. Do you dispute these accounts and why do you?

The Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Tacitus wrote --

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



Please see the link below stating that modern scholarship believes these accounts to be authentic. Please explain your refusal to accept modern historians opinion on this matter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

[TSO]

You have made a positive claim that there are no historical accounts of Jesus. Please defend this positive claim you have made. Do you dispute these accounts and why do you?

No, that isn't a positive claim. It's a response to your positive claim that there are first hand accounts of his existence.

The Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Tacitus wrote --

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



Please see the link below stating that modern scholarship believes these accounts to be authentic. Please explain your refusal to accept modern historians opinion on this matter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Yes, there are a lot of third hand accounts of him existing. Third hand(or hearsay) isnt evidence. If it were then Hercules and all other myths are also to be taken as true because all of them have been heralded before.

Find just one first hand account of Jesus and you're on your way to having a shred of evidence. Until then it's 100% false in the eyes of any sane person.

 

[franklinstower]

One more from Flavious Josephus-- this is the part that is NOT considered to have been corrupted by any later Christian groups.

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference inBook 20, Chapter 9, 1of theAntiquitiesto "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12]and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16]Almost all modern scholars consider the reference inBook 18, Chapter 5, 2of theAntiquitiesto the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not aChristian interpolation.[17][18][19]

 

[Trotsky]

Lol, all jokes aside I bet the Roman/Hebrew establishment hated Jesus as much as the Republican/Democrat establishment hates Trump today. If Trump was giving speeches back then, he woulda been on the cross right next to JC.

"It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." - Trump, 20 AD

Seriously, though, he'd have been the guy climbing the government ranks by scapegoating Jews

 

[franklinstower]

No, that isn't a positive claim. It's a response to your positive claim that there are first hand accounts of his existence.


Yes, there are a lot of third hand accounts of him existing. Third hand(or hearsay) isnt evidence. If it were then Hercules and all other myths are also to be taken as true because all of them have been heralded before.

Find just one first hand account of Jesus and you're on your way to having a shred of evidence. Until then it's 100% false in the eyes of any sane person.

I never claimed there are first hand accounts of Jesus. That is a misstatement. You have made positive claims-- defend them or GTFO.


OK I finally understand your point. You don't accept any evidence EVER on any historical person or event that is not first hand. You find yourself at odds with conservative scholars. Can you explain why you are right and they are not?

 

[TSO]

I never claimed there are first hand accounts of Jesus. That is a misstatement.


OK I finally understand your point. You don't accept any evidence EVER on any historical person or event that is not first hand. You find yourself at odds with conservative scholars. Can you explain why you are right and they are not?

You said there was evidence didn't you? Only first hand accounts/eye witnesses count as evidence so you did say you had first hand accounts.

 

[franklinstower]

You said there was evidence didn't you? Only first hand accounts/eye witnesses count as evidence so you did say you had first hand accounts.

This is beginning to seem like a one sided conversation. You need to also answer my questions or you are wasting my time.

Please explain why you don't accept the positions of modern secular scholarship on the historical references to Jesus. They DO consider it evidence. IF you don't just state why you are in disagreement with modern secular scholarship. You MUST have a good reason. I just want to know what it is.

 

[tonni]

The real question is how Jesus would use Sherdog.

 

[TSO]

This is beginning to seem like a one sided conversation. You need to also answer my questions or you are wasting my time.

I have several times already.

Please explain why you don't accept the positions of modern secular scholarship on the historical references to Jesus.

I never accept untenable positions.

They DO consider it evidence.

Not for reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

IF you don't just state why you are in disagreement with modern secular scholarship.

I'm not, I'm against the position that there's evidence of Jesus existence.

You MUST have a good reason. I just want to know what it is.

Evidence, I need evidence to believe a claim.

 

[franklinstower]

I have several times already.

I never accept untenable positions.
Not for reasons that stand up to scrutiny.
I'm not, I'm against the position that there's evidence of Jesus existence.
Evidence, I need evidence to believe a claim.

OK thank you. You have successfully explained that you don't accept modern scholarly historical positions.

What arguments made by these scholars specifically on the subject of Tacitus and Josephus do you find dubious? Is it textual criticism, literary, historical etc?

You also said that no sane person would accept these accounts. Are you questioning the sanity of historical consensus on these matters?

 

[TSO]

OK thank you. You have successfully explained that you don't accept modern scholarly historical positions.

Wrong.

What arguments made by these scholars specifically on the subject of Tacitus and Josephus do you find dubious? Is it textual criticism, literary, historical etc?

All of the above.

You also said that no sane person would accept these accounts. Are you questioning the sanity of historical consensus on these matters?

It doesn't matter how many people are agreeing with something wrong, it's still wrong.

 

[franklinstower]

Wrong.

All of the above.

It doesn't matter how many people are agreeing with something wrong, it's still wrong.

OK just show how they are wrong- make arguments.


You saying it doesn't make it true. You have to address the arguments and provide counter arguments. You are contesting the majority of scholars on this subject without stating why! I think you are trolling.

I also suspect you haven't even read what I posted and do not have counter arguments.

 

[TSO]

You saying it doesn't make it true. .

That is exactly my argument.

 

[HomerThompson]

This is quite entertaining.

 

[franklinstower]

@TSO

The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')."[1] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[2][3][4]

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11][12] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[13][14] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for about one to three years prior to his execution. He preached salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[15] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[16] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[13] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[13] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[17] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).

That is exactly my argument.

 

[lecter]

Wrong.
.

No, not wrong. You're clearly not accepting the modern scholarly historical position on Jesus and try to find reasons why that's actually a rational position and why they're wrong.
You sound like a climate-change denier.