What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?

[Lek]

You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment. It was Herod Antipas, not the Herod the Great, and he ruled Galilee during Jesus' lifetime. As far as the comment about the historians, I already accept the testimony of the gospel writers, but it does show that the majority of non-christian historians agree that Jesus did exist historically.

Actually - that is NOT the case

No one has actually ever shown that the majority of non-christian historians agree that the christ is anything but a mythical belief. That is claimed by the christian group - but I have not seen any SUPPORT for the statement

If a real scientific study had been done - that proved the statement true - you would have posted the actual study involved - as well as the source of the study

Claiming that it is according to YOUR research fails to prove that research is statistically valid - and included a large enough basis - how many THOUSANDS of historians have you researched - from what eras - and based on what statements?

Example - I would expect that most islamic historians accept that the christ was a historical PROPHET - not a god - and was not born of a god - as their religion states. But - that is NOT acceptance that the christ as believed by christians was a historical figure.
Another example - the acceptance that there might have been a HUMAN upon which the myths of the xtian christ started - is NOT acceptance of the christ as a historical figure as well.

IT is one thing to claim that exaggerations built up around a human religious person - and another to claim that the son of a god actually existed on earth. I would suggest that this is the MOST you would get from non-christian historians - certainly the miracles - and coming back from the dead would NOT be accepted by them.

In addition - if they did accept the christ - did they also accept lots of other "gods" as well?
Claiming that Josephus accepted the existence of the christ ignores that he also wrote about the Roman Pantheon
What good is quoting a "historian" who lists many gods?
I would also not accept the statements of historians from the era where they would have been killed for heresy if they wrote otherwise

And -Today - The majority of Historians of ALL types - Xtian as well - accept Ramses the Great -GOD of egypt - to be a historical figure - along with a few dozen other Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be gods.

Until you provide real tested research - you are simply repeating another statement from the belevers upon which you offer NO factual support

When I speak of the historical Jesus, I'm speaking of the man who was crucified by the Romans and whom christians claim to be the messiah. I'm not claiming that the majority of historians believe that he was who the bible says he was. I guess I could spend years researching individual historians and try to come up with an actual count for and against, but I just do what most people do and google a variety of web sites that seem to be neutral. The problem is that if someone brings up something like the writings of Josephus, someone will say that they were tampered with or some such thing. It's hard to find unbiased information on the subject, but if Richard Dawkins believes in a real Jesus of Nazareth anyone can.

[truthBtold]

I like u leak.. ur honest. . A bit christian.. but honest.

[Lek]

I like u leak.. ur honest. . A bit christian.. but honest.

Thanks. Sorry about that christian thing.

[ThomM]

Actually - that is NOT the case

No one has actually ever shown that the majority of non-christian historians agree that the christ is anything but a mythical belief. That is claimed by the christian group - but I have not seen any SUPPORT for the statement

If a real scientific study had been done - that proved the statement true - you would have posted the actual study involved - as well as the source of the study

Claiming that it is according to YOUR research fails to prove that research is statistically valid - and included a large enough basis - how many THOUSANDS of historians have you researched - from what eras - and based on what statements?

Example - I would expect that most islamic historians accept that the christ was a historical PROPHET - not a god - and was not born of a god - as their religion states. But - that is NOT acceptance that the christ as believed by christians was a historical figure.
Another example - the acceptance that there might have been a HUMAN upon which the myths of the xtian christ started - is NOT acceptance of the christ as a historical figure as well.

IT is one thing to claim that exaggerations built up around a human religious person - and another to claim that the son of a god actually existed on earth. I would suggest that this is the MOST you would get from non-christian historians - certainly the miracles - and coming back from the dead would NOT be accepted by them.

In addition - if they did accept the christ - did they also accept lots of other "gods" as well?
Claiming that Josephus accepted the existence of the christ ignores that he also wrote about the Roman Pantheon
What good is quoting a "historian" who lists many gods?
I would also not accept the statements of historians from the era where they would have been killed for heresy if they wrote otherwise

And -Today - The majority of Historians of ALL types - Xtian as well - accept Ramses the Great -GOD of egypt - to be a historical figure - along with a few dozen other Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be gods.

Until you provide real tested research - you are simply repeating another statement from the belevers upon which you offer NO factual support

When I speak of the historical Jesus, I'm speaking of the man who was crucified by the Romans and whom christians claim to be the messiah. I'm not claiming that the majority of historians believe that he was who the bible says he was. I guess I could spend years researching individual historians and try to come up with an actual count for and against, but I just do what most people do and google a variety of web sites that seem to be neutral. The problem is that if someone brings up something like the writings of Josephus, someone will say that they were tampered with or some such thing. It's hard to find unbiased information on the subject, but if Richard Dawkins believes in a real Jesus of Nazareth anyone can.

There remains NO historical documents or mention of the christ during his supposed time - and there is certainly NO support for the claim of a crucifixion. That claimed crucifixion is one of the "events" that would not be accepted by a historian - there are simply too many holes in that story for it to be true. That a HUMAN religious man may have been the starting point for the exaggerations that clearly followed - might be accepted by a Historian - depending on what his idea of Historical is.
Richard Dawkins - is not a Historian though - so where does that come in?

If it is hard to find Unbiased information on the subject - then WHY did you post an ALL ENCOMPASSING statement that MOST non-christian historians accept the christ as a historical figure - when YOU really cannot support that one. You are the one claiming a BIASED piece of information.

That you do what "most" people do and google a few web sites - fails to support YOUR statement that most non-christian historians accept that the christ was a historical figure - and that is why I responded. It simply is NOT TRUE - in the way YOU presented it. Now you reduce the scope of the statement - but it is still not true.

If you were trying to support a belief - stick with Ramses - virtually every historian agrees he was real - xtian or non. And if YOU have proof that there was a crucifixion - by all means post it here for all to see - you will be the very first one to do so.

[Cyberman]

The problem is that if someone brings up something like the writings of Josephus, someone will say that they were tampered with or some such thing.

Mainly because they were. If that's a problem, maybe the question needs to be addressed as to why Josephus is brought up as evidence at all. Why the need for them to be tampered with in the first place, if there was contemporary evidence for the JC character?

[ThomM]

The problem is that if someone brings up something like the writings of Josephus, someone will say that they were tampered with or some such thing.

Mainly because they were. If that's a problem, maybe the question needs to be addressed as to why Josephus is brought up as evidence at all. Why the need for them to be tampered with in the first place, if there was contemporary evidence for the JC character?

Actually - it really makes no difference if the writings were tampered with or not - - Josephus could not have been an eye witness to the christ myth if it had lived - Josephus was born AFTER the claimed death. At most - he could pass on hearsay from believers - but that only proves that the story existed - not that the christ was real.

Xians constantly use statements and documents of dubious value to support their claim of a "christ" because there is NO mention of the christ in the historical record of its supposed time -

However - the response from us should be - we Expect the same level of PROOF of existence that YOU would require to prove you wrong - and another god correct. And there is NONE at all.

[Cyberman]

Hence my use of the "contemporary" qualifier, but the clarification needed stating. Thanks.

Yes, it'd be as though there were found writings about a mysterious 'fifth Beatle' among the many contenders, but none of the evidence dated to less than twenty years after the guy's apparent death.

[Minimalist]

You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment.

Good grief, Lek. I hardly recognize you lately.

[Lek]

You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment.

Good grief, Lek. I hardly recognize you lately.

It was a bad day.

[Minimalist]

So it seems.

Cheer up - the world has two new "saints!"