My Beliefs- GDR

Really? Who?Not really eyewitnesses if we have no evidence they existed either.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Wikipedia also has an article called Christ myth theory
So I guess that means he was a myth.As for Tacitus, Kapyong addressed this a few years ago on this forum.

quote:

---

TACITUS (c.112CE)

​

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

​

Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

​

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

​

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to acknowledge anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

​

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar

​

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)

​

But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

​

Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

​

TALMUD (3rd C. and later

​

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are variant and quite different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)

​

So,
the Talmud contains later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories,
but
the Talmud contains NO evidence for a historical Jesus.

---

Message 7Message 8 is the definitive post on the issue.You really should read the sources, not take other peoples word for it.

Eddy's comment is worthless and just an outright assertion.
Ehrman's comment is also worthless, because Tacitus is not confirming anything. Tacitus may have just been repeating what he heard from Christians. So his source is the source that needs to be confirmed. In other words the books of the bible are probably being used to confirm themselves.

Bullshit we have no idea who wrote gospels. You show me some historical evidence of who these people were then you may have a point. All we have is christian tradition, no evidence.

We have historical evidence of who his father was. Yes there are legends but that is what they are, legends. His parents were Philip II of Macedonia and his 4th wife Olympia. This we know from numerous sources.We have no historical record of Jesus or his parents.Using your argument the historicity of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett and numerous others should be questioned because there are and were legends about them.All of these people and Alexander have a historical record and left a verifiable legacy behind. We have none of that for Jesus. Just a bunch of stories that have questionable and tainted provenance

Who were they? What else did they write? Show me evidence of who they were and I might think what they wrote has some relevance.Why are those writings any more important or relevant than;
Bhagavad Gita
Koran
Talmud
Tao-te-ching
Veda

Then admit that there is no historical basis for your belief. It is faith alone. Alas there is no evidence for said resurrection is there.

Yes we can. From this we can confirm that some rely on the same source or are rehashings of others. Also, there are vast disagreements between them.Ultimately we do not know who wrote them. Historical researchers rely on original source and provenance. If we want to throw that out we can pretend the books of the bible are historical. They are not evidence. They should be judged in comparison with other sources we have from the period. If nothing supports it we cannot consider it evidence.
They can be accepted on faith alone.

Some god you have there. He cannot even get a story straight. That sure is some awesome divine inspiration. In other words it is all on faith. The lack of evidence is a clear sign of evidence?Wow.

Ever hear of Rastafarianism?

Exactly, and until there is corroborating evidence the default should be that it is a story not history.

Why?
I don't understand why that would be required. Please explain. Scientifically, not just assertions and incredulity. Exactly. You have no more evidence for Jesus than there is for Unicorns. All unsourced and questionable provenance. Again why? The comment is exceedingly silly. Life itself is the potential. Original life did not have to have info about humans in order for humans to evolve. If you think so please explain why.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

As has been pointed out numerous times they are not independent sources. There is an incestuous relationship between most of the gospels and acts.They are not independent historical sources that corroborate each other. Really? Evidence? Since the gospels and acts date to at least post 70CE and probably closer to 100CE how do you rationalize this? How many people lived to 70 at that time? How come there is no independent source from this time period?All of you arguments devolve to this. I believe by faith alone and do not need any evidence.

You have provided no argument to support this assertion. Why would seeds need to be contained in the initial cellular life?Science seems to show this is not true. Do Hydrogen and oxygen have seeds for the property of water in them? How do you show this?What properties in Nitrogen and Hydrogen are the seeds for the properties of ammonia? This is just an assertion. Back up this claim. You will need to provide some sort of definition of information if you want to make this claim. Really? The bible sure does. How about elves, leprechauns, nessie, bigfoot? You are really good at logical fallacies aren't you.Edited by Theodoric, : punctuation

This shows the tortuous reasoning you have to use in order to shoehorn reality into your beliefs and preconceived ideas. Also, the dishonesty of your arguments. Earlier you stated that since the bible is a collection of different "books", they can be used to corroborate each other. Maybe you just don't know what the word means. And we have no idea who wrote them. Another assertion with no evidence. Not really modern scholarship shows otherwise. Mark probably dates from approx 70CE. This is still 40 years post supposed crucifixion. 40 years with absolutely nothing. After 40 years it would just be stories about stories. Mark was probably written in Rome to a Roman audience. So 40+ years and 1500 of miles from site of the stories. Yeah sure. Find me some evidence, not tradition. But what is it evidence for? For the historical existence of Jesus and a resurrection it is thin gruel. For people believing a story it is evidence. So why are you arguing with me? We both agree that the only thing that justifies your beliefs on this is faith and faith alone.