JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

An ex post facto "prophecy" is called "history."

Only when you get it right.

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego, the evidence you have presented is not terribly substantial given the claims made about Jesus life and deeds written in the Gospels. If these events which are described in the gospels actually happened, I would have expected a lot more being written about them by contemporary writers (which a substantial enough amount of their works survive to our era). Also not to mention Christians would made the effort to preserve these works as well.

ALTER2EGO -to- JUSTTRISTO:
Not only was Christianity a new religion, its founder, Jesus Christ was poor and therefore not paid too much attention by people of privilege. In addition, Jesus Christ was executed three years after he began his ministry. Add to that the fact that his followers were routinely persecuted, flogged, and imprisoned, and you have a climate of fear surrounding Christianity. Now, which contemporary writer in his right mind would have stuck his neck out in a situation like that?

I might add that not only was Christianity not a well-known religion at the time, it was confined to a fairly small location--besides being unpopular. Contemporary writers ran the risk of being persecuted if they had written anything to bring attention to this new religion. If you wish, I can give you a scriptural example of the risk involved in drawing attention to Christianity back then.


I will reply to the other part of your post later.

[Justtristo]

ALTER2EGO -to- JUSTTRISTO:
Not only was Christianity a new religion, its founder, Jesus Christ was poor and therefore not paid too much attention by people of privilege. In addition, Jesus Christ was executed three years after he began his ministry. Add to that the fact that his followers were routinely persecuted, flogged, and imprisoned, and you have a climate of fear surrounding Christianity. Now, which contemporary writer in his right mind would have stuck his neck out in a situation like that?

I might add that not only was Christianity not a well-known religion at the time, it was confined to a fairly small location--besides being unpopular. Contemporary writers ran the risk of being persecuted if they had written anything to bring attention to this new religion. If you wish, I can give you a scriptural example of the risk involved in drawing attention to Christianity back then.


I will reply to the other part of your post later.

I bet you don't know how credulous people were back in the first centuries of the common era in that part of the world. Richard Carrier really sums up the mindset of the populace in this article below.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Also I cannot see how people who especially were opposed to "The Way" fail to mention about the events described in the Gospels. Considering some of the stuff in it, like a 3 hour eclipse, a earthquake in Jerusalem with the undead coming out of their tombs and the temple curtain tearing in two. I cannot believe Josephus let alone Roman writers such as Pliny the Elder who wrote about all sorts of things, not writing about this.

I challenge you to listen to a talk by Richard Carrier talk about how all this never happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

[Alter2Ego]

I'll just say this; the entries about Jesus Christ are all written by men who lived and went through their careers as historians decades after Christ died. They don't give firsthand accounts. And the entries themselves supposedly confirming Christ's execution? How do you confirm something you did not see with your own eyes? Worse and most damning of all is how the writings themselves suddenly change style when talking about Christ specifically. Not his followers; the man himself. This is mostly conjecture, unfortunately, but I'll just say that all this plus the convenience of the supposed resurrection [which was never recorded by any independent sources outside of the bible, by the way] explaining away the lack of a body makes this whole thing REALLY convenient.

ALTER2EGO -to- CREED OF HERESY:
Next you will be arguing that modern historians who write about the founding fathers of the USA got their info first hand. All that's needed is for a historian to have access to credible sources, such as government records. For example, Cornelius Tacitus lived through the reign of several Roman emperors and earned the reputation as "the greatest historian of his era." That reputation indicates he was an outstanding historian from the viewpoint of his contemporaries.

Below are some of the sources that Tacitus got his historical data from. I bolded words that I want to draw your attention to. I'm quoting it verbatim and also providing the weblink for your personal research.


WHERE DID CORNELIUS TACTITUS GET HIS INFO?

The sources of Tacitus
Tacitus used the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. Generally, Tacitus was a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his historical works. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before finishing (and therefore final proofreading) of this work. He used a variety of historical and literary sources; he used them freely and he chose from sources of varied opinions.

http://www.tititudorancea.org/z/tacitus.htm

[Thor]

And much to nobody's surprise, these "many people" who consider Josephus' work on Jesus Christ to be counterfeit are merely speculating. They don't have a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying.

Tell me, since when did speculations equate to evidence?[/color]

---

Whatever Josephus has to say about Jesus is hearsay as he was not born until AFTER Jesus supposedly died. So, it's rather irrelevant whether or not Josephus actually wrote the passages regarding Jesus.

[FallentoReason]

And much to nobody's surprise, these "many people" who consider Josephus' work on Jesus Christ to be counterfeit are merely speculating. They don't have a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying.

Tell me, since when did speculations equate to evidence?[/color]

---

Whatever Josephus has to say about Jesus is hearsay as he was not born until AFTER Jesus supposedly died. So, it's rather irrelevant whether or not Josephus actually wrote the passages regarding Jesus.

I let him know that Jews don't confess that Jesus was the Messiah by definition. Josephus speaking of Jesus like that refutes itself as a credible source for the existence of Jesus.

[Thor]

Not only was Christianity a new religion, its founder, Jesus Christ was poor and therefore not paid too much attention by people of privilege.

If people of privilege didn't pay him any attention, why was he executed?

In addition, Jesus Christ was executed three years after he began his ministry. Add to that the fact that his followers were routinely persecuted, flogged, and imprisoned, and you have a climate of fear surrounding Christianity. Now, which contemporary writer in his right mind would have stuck his neck out in a situation like that?

Why wouldn't any contemporary historian make mention of a man who was going around walking on water, raising the dead and healing the sick with a touch of his hand? What? These events were so ordinary as to not be worth recording? And why wouldn't anybody write about an event as incredible as a man rising from the dead and people emerging from graves and walking around town? This makes sense to you?

I might add that not only was Christianity not a well-known religion at the time, it was confined to a fairly small location--besides being unpopular.

Oh, I love this kind of crap. If Jesus was truly divine, why would he confine himself to only one small area? Why wouldn't he travel throughout Europe, Scandanavia, Asia, the Pacific Islands, Australia, the Americas, etc, etc...? Why wouldn't he want his message to be heard everywhere? Why wouldn't he want everyone to know who he is?

Contemporary writers ran the risk of being persecuted if they had written anything to bring attention to this new religion.

Oh, bullshit. A contemporary writer couldn't record the activities of this man without being persecuted? What a load of crap. Perhaps such a person would be persecuted if his writings endorsed the religion. But to be persecuted merely for recording actual events? If anything, the authorities would WANT the story of Jesus's torment to be disseminated. This is what happens when you go against the authorities! But it's nowhere in any historical writings or documents. Keep rationalizing. It'll get you far.

[Shell B]

Can we just annihilate the ability to add color to posts? Pretty please?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Can we just annihilate the ability to add color to posts? Pretty please?

Just be glad flashing text is disabled.

[Alter2Ego]

An ex post facto "prophecy" is called "history."

Only when you get it right.

I'm trying to keep this thread on the topic of Jesus Christ's historicity. See my response on Page 6, Post #56, at my thread entitled: "THE BIBLE: God's Word Or Man's?"

Here is the weblink.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12294-po...#pid285401