[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

As for Jesus not existing...well, the group of scholars/historians who doubt (or at the very least "debate" it as you put it) is growing all the time. Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of what historians call "evidence" of Jesus existing...and if he said/did even half of what the bible claims he did, there should be lots of evidence for it.

There IS plenty of historical evidence, secular as well as biblical. Obviously you simply don't believe it.

Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

Jewish Historians: The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real. “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.³

Noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”4 If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so?

In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.5

At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah.”6

Although some of his words are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.7

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”8

World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus.9

Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”10

Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.11

Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.12

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”

Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.

Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.13 Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.14

Historical Facts about Jesus:

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.
• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.15

Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”16 According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”17

The preceding article was excerpted from Was Jesus A Real Person?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There IS plenty of historical evidence, secular as well as biblical. Obviously you simply don't believe it.

Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

Jewish Historians: The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real. “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.³

Noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”4 If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so?

In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.5

At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah.”6

Although some of his words are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.7

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”8

World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus.9

Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”10

Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.11

Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.12

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”

Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.

Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.13 Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.14

Historical Facts about Jesus:

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.
• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.15

Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”16 According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”17

The preceding article was excerpted from Was Jesus A Real Person?

Lol that's probably a non-biased article. If you'd actually like to discuss the evidence for a historical Jesus, make a thread. Im not going to derail this one.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem with "non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality" is that quantum mechanics has demonstrated that objective reality changes when you observe it.

At the moment of observation, reality is as you have observed it.

Objective reality doesn't mean purely unobserved reality (in some Kantian sense, perhaps). Even if an entity is a bit different when it is not observed (that is, when nothing is currently interacting with the entity), that doesn't mean that you aren't being objective when it is observed.

QM poses no real difficulties to non-contradictory, objective identification of the facts of reality. There is no logical contradiction in stating that something that isn't observed is different than when it is observed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Jesus said He is the truth. Either He is deluded and insane or a liar and a fraud or He is the Truth.

These are my options, and there are combinations possible.

Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Mistaken
Misunderstood
Misrepresented
Mythical

I personally lean slightly towards mythical, with misrepresented (and historical) a strong possibility.

Personally, I don't see any problem with concluding liar or lunatic, especially in combination with misunderstood or misrepresented.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now honesty is it more likely for me to stop believing in God who describes himself as infinite and timeless and this description just so happens to explain every question I've ever had about life, do you honesty think I'll ever stop believing when my beliefs have been confirmed by life itself? Or is it more likely that you'll become a believer when God proves himself to you?

My godless beliefs have been confirmed by life itself. So, it is reasonable for me to conclude, following a similar line of reasoning, that it is more likely that you'll become a non-believer than it is for me to become a believer?

Do you notice how the odds shift when one assumes that one is correct?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No offense...but surely you know that your beliefs about god are just as "unprovable" as whatever theories you're referring to? I had absolutely no understanding of evolution or the big bang when I decided that the concept of god made no sense...so those things have nothing to do with my disbelief.

The question was, if you found convincing evidence...would you change your mind?

I've honestly searched for convincing evidence and instead I found convincing evidence that evil is real and I went through a very tough spiritual battle and the only way I got through it was by accepting Jesus and devoting my life to him.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is the point. Not only does science only study within its own limitations, it refuses to consider other areas: in your own words "zero."

There are people in both camps who "believe" and "hope" what they have heard is suppose to be true. But what you apparently do not recognize is that there are also people in both camps who "know" what is true.

Do you really want to compare the track records of science and faith at generating knowledge?

Only the reality within the sphere of science goes to science...and as much as you say you grant theology, etc. your bottom line grant is "zero."

Sure, in the context of this thread. Of course theology, like other forms of fiction, can provide entertainment value. Typically the problem comes in when people think that this fiction is reality.

Just once, it would be nice if someone like yourself could/would expand their horizon and consider the foreign concepts outside the school of scientific learning, and say, "Wow, I know nothing of what you are saying, but obviously there is something huge there to consider, which I am totally unaccustomed to and ill-prepared to comment."

What makes you think my conclusions are based on ignorance of the field? That's pretty presumptuous.

I don't know why this is so difficult, but it would appear to be impossible. We ALL grant our own ignorance when we walking to a women's clothing store, etc. So the only explanation must be that science has some sort of complex about ignorance, and is afraid of venturing out of their comfort zone. It's such a sad testimony on humanity. Of course (predictably) you all continue to deny your own inability to venture out.

This kind of response would be a lot more useful if you'd explain what it is I or science is supposedly missing or doing wrong. I already enjoy fiction and mythology as entertainment, and that at times includes theology and religion. So it isn't that I'm ignoring it, just that I realize that if I need to figure out something about reality, fiction isn't the best approach.

 

[KCfromNC]

Knowledge is demonstrable.

You just have to have faith that your faith in it is true and that problem goes away. As long as you have faith that your faith in the faith is correct.

 

[KCfromNC]

Jesus said He is the truth. Either He is deluded and insane or a liar and a fraud or He is the Truth.

Pick one.

Misquoted, mistranslated, misunderstood, made up. There are lots of other options.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's the problem. Science had gotten to a point where there is no physical evidence to prove why we're all here.

Perhaps that's an indication that there is no why in the first place. If you keep asking the wrong questions you're never going to get a good answer.

 

[ScottA]

Lol that's probably a non-biased article. If you'd actually like to discuss the evidence for a historical Jesus, make a thread. Im not going to derail this one.

If you don't want to derail the thread, then don't make false claims and then shirk the evidence. You are the one whose position on this thread is predicated on claims that don't belong. You went there, obviously because your position could not be supported in context. LOL is right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you don't want to derail the thread, then don't make false claims and then shirk the evidence. You are the one whose position on this thread is predicated on claims that don't belong. You went there, obviously because your position could not be supported in context. LOL is right.

What false claims did I make? Quote me.

 

[ScottA]

Do you really want to compare the track records of science and faith at generating knowledge?

Only that they are lopsided: Faith has accepted science and offered information to the realm of space, time, and matter universe in which science exists. But science has NOT accepted faith, has NOT offered information to the spiritual realm of faith...because it refuses to go there. No comparison.

Sure, in the context of this thread. Of course theology, like other forms of fiction, can provide entertainment value. Typically the problem comes in when people think that this fiction is reality.

That is what the naysayers said about the Americas. And to call it fiction...is just plain derogatory.

What makes you think my conclusions are based on ignorance of the field? That's pretty presumptuous.

Oh, I don't know...maybe because you have such a big opinion about somewhere you have never been.

This kind of response would be a lot more useful if you'd explain what it is I or science is supposedly missing or doing wrong. I already enjoy fiction and mythology as entertainment, and that at times includes theology and religion. So it isn't that I'm ignoring it, just that I realize that if I need to figure out something about reality, fiction isn't the best approach.

Okay. Imagine two worlds (Example: the old, pre-Americas world, and the new world). Now, imagine you are an expert in the old world, but emphatically refuse to consider the new world and at the same time belittle it. If you can't see from history just how naive that is...at least know that history (even here in your reality) does not support your position.

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps that's an indication that there is no why in the first place. If you keep asking the wrong questions you're never going to get a good answer.

Your right the question isn't why, the question is who. Maybe your the one who's been asking the wrong questions.

 

[Chriliman]

My godless beliefs have been confirmed by life itself. So, it is reasonable for me to conclude, following a similar line of reasoning, that it is more likely that you'll become a non-believer than it is for me to become a believer?

Do you notice how the odds shift when one assumes that one is correct?


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is exactly why I started the thread, because I don't believe we should base our reasoning on assumptions. However many athiests do exactly that and it causes problems in their reasoning, as I've pointed out in this thread. Rather I think we should base our reasoning on observation and then believe what makes the most sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Rather I think we should base our reasoning on observation and then believe what makes the most sense.

No one here disagrees with you on that.

Even when we make assumptions, we try to base them off of observation as much as we can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ScottA]

What false claims did I make? Quote me.

Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of what historians call "evidence" of Jesus existing.

 

[True Scotsman]

This is exactly why I started the thread, because I don't believe we should base our reasoning on assumptions. However many athiests do exactly that and it causes problems in their reasoning, as I've pointed out in this thread. Rather I think we should base our reasoning on observation and then believe what makes the most sense.

Apparently the conclusion of an argument which is both valid and sound is not included in "what makes sense". So I suspect "what makes sense" is anything that confirms what you want to believe.

 

[Chriliman]

Apparently the conclusion of an argument which is both valid and sound is not included in "what makes sense". So I suspect "what makes sense" is anything that confirms what you want to believe.

Exactly, read my signature. It's either you who is unwilling to really question your beliefs for fear of being wrong and thus having to accept that God exists, or its me who already fears God who is unwilling to deny God for obvious reasons, why would I deny the very thing that brought me into existence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Apparently the conclusion of an argument which is both valid and sound is not included in "what makes sense". So I suspect "what makes sense" is anything that confirms what you want to believe.

He seems to think that what makes sense to him is what has to make sense to everyone else, and if what makes sense to other people is different, then they are just doing it wrong and he can't be at fault. (And, if all else fails, make some pious comment how they will find Jesus one day.)


eudaimonia,

Mark