That seems like gibberish.
This is simply not the case.
How would they, when the evidence required for such a conclusion does not exist.
‘Most’ historians don’t even agree that Jesus actually existed, as the evidence required, again, does not exist.
There is also counter evidence to suggest that Jesus is plagiarised/inspired from/by a culmination of other characters from other religions, which is currently being discussed in another thread.
Even then, This would be simultaneously an argument from authority fallacy, and a bandwagon fallacy rolled into one.
Here is a great article in response to this.
1 Like
I’m sorry. Most? A majority of sources will say that only “some” historians believe he existed.
In any case, you were saying?
3 Likes
Please cite the source ‘AND’ exactly what they said. Most Christians think this but when you actually look at what they said, they in no way confirmed anything. They talked about what the Christians of the time believed. NOTHING MORE. (Hint: Stay away from the forgery in Tacitus that was written 100 years after the death of the Jesus character. There are two different passages, one he may have written and the other is an outright forgery.)
Next: You really need something contemporary to the life of Jesus. First Century. The closest we get to that is perhaps the writings of Paul 60 AD. 30 years after the Jesus person was supposed to have died. The oldest New Testament Manuscript is a 4th Century documen, Codex Sinaiticus , The oldest biblical book was likely 1 Thessalonians , written around 50 CE. Mark is generally agreed to be the first gospel ; it was written soon after the destruction of the second temple 70 AD.
YOU HAVE NOTHING contemporary to the life of Jesus that substantiates any of the claims made in the bible. You can not even substantiate his existence using an external source. Please try. Give me a quote that says, “Jesus actually existed and was crucified.” Nowhere contemporary to the life of Jesus will you find this, outside a biblical story, and even those are not contemporary. Every source you cited clearly states, 'This is what Christians believed." If you can find a source that clearly states, 'This is what happened." I can’t wait to see it. I am certain that you are clearly mistaken.
6 Likes
Yes, yes, and well, yes. Me too! The trouble is, if that information existed, we likely would already all be familiar with it, considering the zeal with which apologists parade the completely debunked and demonstrably worthless claims of verifications. If there was any proof, there would not be an ongoing conversation regarding authenticity of the clearly bogus and absurd claims.
Therefore I would strongly advise against holding one’s breath upon anticipation of the arrival of a source as you describe…besides, you’ve been warned about holding your breath during some of your, ahem, “activities”.
.
.
Edit for turning blue
The quote itself came from J. Warner Wallace’s book which refers to Dr. Gary Habermas and Professor Mike Licona’s book “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” and in this book it’s in the introduction to part 2: the Minimal Facts Approach
You have been told countless times that such claims are unevidenced hearsay.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity is real, or even possible?
That is all unevidenced hearsay, so what is your point?
Are you going to answer my question, can you or can you not demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?
There is no historical evidence that justifies the word christ in there, and even were we to accept the scant evidence for this one claim, it doesn’t remotely evidence any of the other claims about him, or that he was anything but human.
This is unevidenced hearsay.
2 Likes
That’s not what I was asking a source for. You asserted (as I highlighted in my inquiry) that “most historians agree…”. Please cite your source for the quantity of most historians.
1 Like
Also that these historians are offering historical evidence, and not simply a subjective religious belief they share. The evidence for the crucifixion is scant by any historical standard.
NB FWIW an ironclad amount of historical evidence that someone with a common name of that era, received what was a pretty common execution of that time, doesn’t remotely evidence the existence of any deity or anything supernatural.
2 Likes
and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.
Gary Robert Habermas is an American New Testament scholar and theologian who frequently writes and lectures on the resurrection of Jesus. He has specialized in cataloging and communicating trends among scholars in the field of historical Jesus and New Testament studies.
Michael R. “Mike” Licona is an American New Testament scholar and author. He is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University, Extraordinary Associate Professor of Theology at North-West University and the director of Risen Jesus, Inc
In short. They all make a living, feeding off of believers. Their jobs depend on evidence for the existence of Jesus. Even if that evidence is manufactured. While their names carry the title of PhD and Professor, in front of them, these are not reliable sources. Instead, they are sources with an Agenda.
The fact remains, we have no reliable historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. The current trend in theology is to give way to the idea that a Jesus the man may have existed, The man was an itinerant preacher that Christianity became based upon. That is about as much as you can get out of the actual available evidence.
If you think you have one bit of evidence, or that any of these great scholars has shared one piece of evidence, that evidences (Provides Evidence For) the Biblical claim that Jesus existed and was real. Please post it. Just one piece of evidence. Use your very best. (A bunch of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence.) Pick the one claim you feel is best attested to by the facts and evidence outside the bible, and share.
Perhaps a witness wrote about all the zombies walking the streets, and we missed it someplace. It might be that somone wrote about Palm Sunday, some government official documented the event, and we have not yet seen the documents. Perhaps some vendor in the market wrote in his journal about the mad man ripping the place apart and turning over the tables. Do you have anything at all, from the first century, contemporary to the life and times of Jesus, that would confirm his existence. Anything. I am only asking for “ONE” small bit of evidence. Surely that should not be too difficult for you. “ONE” inarguable bit of evidence that will confirm your position. ONLY ONE Is this hard to do?
6 Likes
Looking at writings soon after Christ we can reasonably say the gospel we call Mark is 45 AD
This is due to the fact that the book of Acts doesn’t mention the destruction of the temple (70AD), the death of Paul (64-67AD), the death of James (61AD) or Peter. Side note if the book of Acts was false why wouldn’t it include the destruction of the temple since Christ had predicted its destruction wouldn’t it make Christ look good see Matthew 23. Actually for that matter its not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.
In 1 Timothy 5:17-18, (63-64AD) the author is quoting Deuteronomy and Jesus found in Luke 10:6-7, claiming its scripture. So it has to exist for some time before people are quoting it as scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (53-57AD) the author, who is Paul, tells the church of Corinth to eat of the bread and drink of the cup and quotes Jesus to “do this in remembrance of me.” This phrase “in remembrance of me” is only found in Luke.
In Luke 1:1-4 Luke says he is writing an orderly account account (sequentially) so that means there’s an account out there that is not sequential that’s used by Luke. And Luke quotes Mark more than anything else.
So that puts Mark 10-15 years after the events.
The gospels were handed down a chain of custody to the council of Laodicea 363 AD
While there is disagreement about where Mark wrote, there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE , after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans. That destruction shapes how Mark tells his story. (So Where did you come up with the silly date of 45 CE?)
The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 CE (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, written about a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus (ca. 30 CE).
2 Likes
You’re missing the point over and over again?
- The name Mark is fictitious as are the other names assigned the gospels over 3 centuries after the events they purport to describe.
- There is no corroborating evidence to support the claims in the gospels, and not one contemporary account in them, they are by definition unevidenced hearsay.
- Since the claims are of the most extraordinary in nature, for supernatural events there is no objective evidence is even possible, then the burden of proof would have to reflect this, you have the weakest of “evidence” for the most extraordinary of claims.
It has been explained to you repeatedly that quoting the claims in the bible will sway no one here, unless you can support those claims with sufficient objective evidence.
What’s your point? I can trace the Harry Potter books directly back to the author, she is alive and well, and we have objective evidence she exists, and we can even question her, this doesn’t make the magic described in her books real? All you have are some anonymous texts, written decades after the events they purport to describe.
You don’t seem to have any grasp of the enormity of the claims, or the paucity of objective evidence to support them.
1 Like
That is not what Wikipedia says.
1 Like
Bible historians contend that Mark’s Gospel was the first gospel written in 70 A.D., Matthew and Luke followed in approximately 80 A.D., and John about 95 A.D…all four Gospels were written by anonymous authors. As to the actual names of the authors who wrote the Gospels, historians can only speculate.
Those are facts.
As to your claim:
" The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers . It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being."
“They had an agenda that was biased in favour of their subjective religious beliefs, they chose which narratives favoured that bias / belief, and threw out what they felt did not. What they included, was then assigned fictional names to lend some gravitas, by implying they were the work of disciples and contemporaries.”
History of controversy and conflict
“In 325 the Council of Nicaea was convened to settle the controversy. The council condemned Arius as a heretic and issued a creed to safeguard “orthodox” Christian belief. The creed states that the Son is homoousion tō Patri (“of one substance with the Father”), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.”
So much for “chain of custody”, there was significant dissent among early Christians about over the (unevidenced) claims in the gospel narratives.
It’s not what the Catholic church says either:
“Internal evidence suggests that the Gospel of Mark was probably written between 65 and 70 CE , after the death of Peter and towards or at the end of the four-year war between Israel and Rome. This war resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, as evidenced in Mark 13.”
https://catholicidentity.bne.catholic.edu.au/scripture/SitePages/Who-wrote-the-gospels-and-when.aspx
Though they also believe all manner of unevidenced guff about it as well of course, this at least is supported by some objective evidence.
I suppose believing a book was written a quarter of a century early isn’t half as crazy as all the magic shit in Christianity.
2 Likes
Well exactly, a point I don’t seem to be able to make @WhoAreYou understand, no matter how many times I explain it. It’s as if they think the sum of smaller claims somehow can add up to evidence of the larger ones for magic and the supernatural.
1 Like
BINGO! And I, as well as yourself, just keep asking for one, JUST ONE, small bit of real evidence, contemporary to the life of this Jesus guy, that supports any of the claims made by the Bible referencing him.
Just one fact. One! The very best piece of actual evidence possible. PLEASE! Why not just share it with us and stop playing games?
1 Like
Sorry, but this reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/uRpt4a6H99c
Edit (not sorry)
1 Like