Fascinating article Re: Roman Empire and Christ

[VeritasMama]

I'm confused as to why it would matter if a non divine Jesus existed in the first century in Israel. That's not an extraordinary claim at all. To suggest Jesus was a regular guy whose likable personality inspired some crazy fan-fic stories about him generations later is to ignore the historical record of other similar religious characters. It is to say these other religious stories were totally made up, the characters upon which these stories were built never existed, but when they were totally made up by Christians, it was based on a real person. It's like saying all the Marvel Comic book characters were fabrications of the imagination, but Spiderman is based on a real guy. It sounds like you don't share this belief anyway.

 

 

It sounds like you're suggesting the evidence presented is Ehrman's belief that if people who have formal training and education have generally believed the historical Jesus existed in fact, then it must be so because such people are much smarter and more educated than him on the topic.

 

If my comparison with Mohammed is confusing (as I don't take the Koran as proof of any of its claims, including the existence of Mohammed), then let me take it to a ridiculous limit just to simplify it: The bible is no more evidence that Jesus lived than Marvel Comics is proof that Spiderman lived.

 

 

If Jesus didn't exist, it's likely his apostles would not have either. Suggesting the New Testament writings are evidence for the existence of Jesus is no more credible than suggesting Peter Parker's photographs are evidence for the existence of Spiderman. To suggest so is to rely on circular reasoning, which is why it isn't evidence by conventional historical standards.

 

 

Do you similarly accept third party accounts about Dionysus to suggest he really lived? What about Hercules? I don't to sound flippant, but to explain the double standard I see here:

You accept religious claims to be proof their claims are legitimate... but only for your religion.

 

 

By the very definitions of these words, Josephus' comment is not contemporary (which I'm using to mean existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time), nor is it first hand testimony (which I'm using to mean testimony from the original source). It's hearsay at best and as such doesn't provide evidence. After all we know a community of believers in the god/man Jesus existed, but to suggest what they did proves their beliefs are based on true events would never pass for the believers of Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, or Heaven's Gate.

 

You've mentioned this evidence before and I assumed it would be extra-biblical evidence. I think maybe I assumed too quickly that you would agree. It took me a while to understand why you would be so hesitant to give specific sources, but I finally get it. If these sources are all biblical, I now understand why you would predict I would dismiss them. ^_^

 

When you suggested Jesus is mentioned in negative terms and/or neutral terms by several non-Christian figures of the day, you're offering biblical stories as evidence that these biblical stories are true. Can you see why people would dismiss that as satisfying the standard for historical research? Would you accept this argument for claims made about any other religious or mythical figures?

I never said the Biblical stories are true. I am not saying that the "Biblical writings" prove that that beliefs of the Christians are true. I'm not talking abut religion at all. I am saying that the writings of the early Christians, the ones found in the Bible and outside the Bible, when taken into account with the rest of the historical record, do prove that Jesus was an actual person, his existence is not a myth. That is all I'm saying, and it is the conclusion of almost all historical scholars going back hundreds of years to when the idea that Jesus didn't actually exist was first presented.

 

And I'm not just talking about Biblical accounts, that is the writings included in the Canon that was finalized in the 4th century. Other Christian writers of the 1st century and the 2nd century wrote extensively about Christ and refuted arguments made by pagans and Jews. The writings in the Bible make up only a small percentage of the overall writings on Jesus, even if they do not all survive to this day we are aware of the works that didn't survive as they are mentioned in later works. Non Christians such as Josephus mention him, as does the Roman historian Tacitus. Much of the mythicists arguments rely on debunking these two historians, but the majority of scholars see them as reliable sources. Justin Martyr was an apologist who also wrote about the historical Jesus, but as he was a Christian you might not trust that source either. But historians do count these as reputable sources to confirm that Jesus existed.

 

It seems as though we are having two different discussions here, and we are going around in circles.

 

As I said, the overwhelming majority of historians, religious and non-religious, have dismissed the arguments made by mythicists based on the historical record, not just "Biblical" documents. This, to me, is a separate issue from the religious beliefs of Christians, which I was not trying to address on this thread.

 

ETA: I forgot to mention, your standard of needing an account written during the person's lifetime in order to confirm their existence is simply not the same standard used by ancient historians for any figure or event, for all the reasons I mentioned above.

[PrairieSong]

I'm confused as to why it would matter if a non divine Jesus existed in the first century in Israel. That's not an extraordinary claim at all. To suggest Jesus was a regular guy whose likable personality inspired some crazy fan-fic stories about him generations later is to ignore the historical record of other similar religious characters. It is to say these other religious stories were totally made up, the characters upon which these stories were built never existed, but when they were totally made up by Christians, it was based on a real person. It's like saying all the Marvel Comic book characters were fabrications of the imagination, but Spiderman is based on a real guy. It sounds like you don't share this belief anyway.

 

 

It sounds like you're suggesting the evidence presented is Ehrman's belief that if people who have formal training and education have generally believed the historical Jesus existed in fact, then it must be so because such people are much smarter and more educated than him on the topic.

 

If my comparison with Mohammed is confusing (as I don't take the Koran as proof of any of its claims, including the existence of Mohammed), then let me take it to a ridiculous limit just to simplify it: The bible is no more evidence that Jesus lived than Marvel Comics is proof that Spiderman lived.

 

 

If Jesus didn't exist, it's likely his apostles would not have either. Suggesting the New Testament writings are evidence for the existence of Jesus is no more credible than suggesting Peter Parker's photographs are evidence for the existence of Spiderman. To suggest so is to rely on circular reasoning, which is why it isn't evidence by conventional historical standards.

 

 

Do you similarly accept third party accounts about Dionysus to suggest he really lived? What about Hercules? I don't to sound flippant, but to explain the double standard I see here:

You accept religious claims to be proof their claims are legitimate... but only for your religion.

 

 

 

The Bible is no more evidence that Jesus lived than Spider-Man comics are evidence that SpiderMan exists? Seriously? I wonder what Bart Ehrman would say to that. I don't think anyone sane would conclude that Spiderman comics are historical documents, but the Bible, even if you do not believe it is of divine origin, is made up of ancient letters and other documents. As for why it even matters that some guy named Jesus existed if he is not divine, it matters to a lot of people...to historians, for one thing. Christianity is a movement in history..you've probably noticed it...it's pretty large. Of course historians would study it and its beginnings.

 

Also, I didn't see that VeritasMama was saying no other founders of other religions exist, only Jesus. Did she? Did I miss something? Just because you say there is historical evidence that X exists, does not mean that because of that Y must not exist.

 

If someone believes there is evidence that Dionysius or Zeus or any of them existed, bring the evidence. Are there any writings from anyone who knew them personally, or knew people who knew them?

 

Again, VeritasMama was saying that there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. Period. She was not talking about his divinity.

[albeto.]

 Thanks for the interesting and helpful conversation.

 

:)

 

[flyingiguana]

Just feel the need to point out that there have been a number of real figures who showed up in comic books.  That doesn't make them suddenly completely fictional.

 

And then there's Dracula -- the name, at least, is from historical figures.

 

Even if one decides that the Bible is a complete work of fiction (lot of argument right there, though) this does not mean that the characters have to also be fictitious.  (Or even that the events are completely fictitious, if it were a work of historical fiction)

[chiguirre]

If someone believes there is evidence that Dionysius or Zeus or any of them existed, bring the evidence. Are there any writings from anyone who knew them personally, or knew people who knew them?

To cite an example almost everyone here would be familiar with, Augustus Caesar became a god when he died according to the Romans. He's not the only example of apotheosis, either. It was a fairly common idea.

[Χά�ων]

Thanks for the interesting and helpful conversation.

 

:)

This. I am not able to type well on my phone but I enjoy reading.

[PrairieSong]

To cite an example almost everyone here would be familiar with, Augustus Caesar became a god when he died according to the Romans. He's not the only example of apotheosis, either. It was a fairly common idea.

Yes, the Egyptians believed that the pharaohs became gods after they died, too. It was a common idea in many cultures. What VeritasMama was saying is that there is historical evidence that Jesus existed, not that he was divine.

[Justified]

I have been down this interesting road. Atwill saw many very true facts. At some point, a polluted view of the holy scriptures was used to the benefit of the Roman Empire to control the masses. Atwill just sees it as making up Jesus as the only alternative to explain why and how people today use the bible to manipulate and control people.

 

To be perfectly honest, a messiah like figure very similar to Jesus can be found in many cultures throughout history. Hindu, Shang Di, Egyptian stories and many more have stories about God giving a self sacrifice for the world. One must either say there is alien conspiracy going on where some evil reptile civilization is painting the same story line over and over to control the masses or maybe, just maybe there is something to this.

 

It is interesting that the emperor of China recorded a solar eclipse on the day Jesus died and said that a man from heaven died, and then turns around three days later and records a rainbow halo phenomenon around the sun and states the heavens declare pardon of sin. Or something along that lines. Anyway, Psalm 19 is not just some figurative nice sounding poem about the sun and stars. Oh the history of stars are so very interesting.

 

Atwill is trying to get past all the garbage that has been put out by the churches and govt for almost two thousand years that is used to manipulate and control people. I give him kudos for asking hard questions even if his theory is flawed.

 

http://godevidence.com/2010/07/which-god-is-real/