The Historical Jesus

[h311inac311]

The authors didn't just make truth claims, they also made these claims during a time when there were living witnesses to the events in question who would've called them out for telling lies. Many of them died for those claims as well.

They also made them during a time when a living witness the next village over might never hear the claim until it's in wide circulation and then are you going to believe what a leader says that everyone knows or that one guy who says he was there and the widespread story is wrong? It was a time of no fact-checkers, no journalistic standards, and barely historical standards.

       When did I say new religions can't be started?
What I was saying is that if your new religion is based on something verifiably false then it will be much more difficult for it to spread. 

I'm not so sure about that. There seem to be several extant religions that have spread pretty well in their mere decades or century or two of existence despite being verifiably false. I think Mormonism and Scientology are verifiably false, do you disagree?

Is all eyewitness testimony of the supernatural wrong by default? 

It's not wrong by default, but it is by default not historical.

     Oh and yes the crusifixion of Jesus was unique, even from a totally secular perspective; this is because Jesus was well known for his ability to talk his way out of a tight situation. And yet, when faced with certain torture, humiliation and death, he didn't bother to open his mouth in his own defense. 

I admit I haven't heard the viewpoint that Jesus should have been able to fast-talk his way out of getting crucified.

Also, the crucifixion is one of the biggest events in all of human history. So yes it is a very big and unique event, not just because a person died on a cross but because one of the most famous people died on a cross. Indeed, there was something peculiar about this one Roman crusifixion which stands out against all others.

You THINK it was one of the biggest events in human history because you're a Christian. To the rest of the world it either didn't actually happen or it was just another poor schlub horribly executed by Roman authorities. Jesus's fame seems largely posthumous, given contemporary historians didn't make note of him.

1. The big word in your response here is might. But the eye-witness accounts might also be true, good thing we have 4 early accounts from 4 early journalists that pass every archeological test we can currently throw at them.

2. But until Matthew Stone and Trey Parker did what they did these religions operated based on secrecy. The church of latter-day saints acts like it is just another denomination of Christianity in order to lure people in. Then they introduce you to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Only after years of indoctrination will they begin to share with you the actual history of the golden plates and Joseph meeting with the angel Moroni. Most people wouldn't convert if they were shown the real truth about Joseph Smith as soon as they walked through the door. By the time they know the truth they already have a whole community to disappoint should they chose to leave the faith.

Same largely goes for Scientology, it starts with a therapy session (audit) where the therapist assures you that they have a solution for all of your problems. Years of indoctrination and communal integration passes and eventually they may tell you who L Ron Hubbard actually was. When the story doesn't hold up to scrutiny the cultists learn very quickly that they have to keep it a secret or else they will push people away.

Christians, on the other hand, put the Gosple front and center, it is all throughout the New Testament (as well as the Old Testament if you have eyes to see). Paul puts Christ's resurrection front and center in his ministry. Nothing was hidden. One of my favorite lines on this matter is this one from the book of Acts. "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."

3. Kind of circular, so in order for history to be history are you saying that atheism needs to be baked into the cake?

4. Thank you.

5. Yet here you are spending much of your time discussing this insignificant story. Why aren't you debating a Zeus apologist? How many defenders of Thor are left alive?

Contemporary historians didn't make note of him? Now how do you know that to be the case?