On religion

[speling bee]

And they are in the bible ... which makes them highly suspect. There is not a single non Christian source which mentions Jesus - not one.



And these records are where?




Of course we do not know for sure but various things in the bible are wrong, or only appear in the bible and not in other sources where we would excpect them. I will let Bart D. Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provide my closing statement

This is from Lecture Three of “From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity”



If you want to believe in this stuff when it is provably wrong on various points and has no evidence to support it's position outside of it's own writings on others then you are welcome to.
I am sure you can understand my desire to investigate, fact check and come to my own conclusion.

However, this is a rabbit hole we have fallen down. I raised several issues with the Christian God (which can be applied to most other Gods tbh) - this was merely an off hand comment which you have seized upon.

Josephus mentions Jesus.

But anyway. There are lots of what ifs. There are lots of possiblr scenarios which mean that Jesus did not exist. But the likelihood, from an independent viewpoint (I am a committed atheist with a degree in Roman History) is that he probably did.

[NotAllThere]

And they are in the bible ... which makes them highly suspect. There is not a single non Christian source which mentions Jesus - not one.

Only if you've already got an irrational bias against the NT documents as a historical source.

And these records are where?

Celcus for one - 2nd century.

There are no records where anti-christian writers say that Jesus didn't exist. Except possibly in Justinian's dialogue with Trypho, but that Trypho may well be a philosophical construct to put forward Justinian's view.

I will let Bart D. Ehrman

Ehrman is saying that Christianity didn't have much effect on the world at large in the early decades. If you read his book, you'll see he also doesn't question Jesus' existence. He cites Josephus and Tacitus. You can look inside his book here and see for yourself.

If you really want to educate yourself, try getting Ehrman's book, and perhaps something like this one. Jesus Outside the New Testament - Voorst.

I don't have a degree in Roman History, but I am studying for a divinity degree at the university of London, so I've been studying this stuff at undergraduate level for well over a year. I'm equally robust with Christians whose opinions are at variance with logic and historical understanding, so don't feel picked on.

[MyUserName]

Josephus mentions Jesus.

Yeah but most historians don't care as:

Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus's original remarks cannot be discerned.

[d000hg]

If Jesus was real and did these amazing things without attracting the attention of any historians of the time

Apart from the gospel writers of course? Or do you mean 'professional historians'?

You also seem to think historians just sit about writing down everything they see. And of course, then as now academics probably don't like to record the supernatural as history.

[speling bee]

Assuming that what we call Christians now is the same as what they called them then then as Jesus himself was not mentioned until 112 AD by Pliny.

However, it is perfectly plausible that these early Christians had started before the alledged birth year of Jesus, they could have been around for decades before hand. I have not seen any evidence to state that these Chritians were worshipping Jesus or, if they were, that they had the same timeline which was later put in place for him.

Do you have any?

Here is evidence. From wiki, look up the source yourself if you like.

Great Fire of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Tacitus, Nero ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified or burned to serve as lights.[14]

He describes the event as follows:

As a consequence, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians[18]] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but, even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. In accordance, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not as much of the crime of firing the city as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[14]

Christus, as NAT says, means Anointed one. It is the Greek for Messiah. The description of Christus fits the biblical narrative of Jesus. This is evidence, not as you say, no evidence. What is the most likely story? Of course, they may well not have been worshiping Jesus, but following him. Christianity develops from a Jewish sect into a religion, but that is by the by.

And, I will repeat, there is Josephus.

[NotAllThere]

Yeah, but according to NoUserName, since wikipedia has errors and inconsistencies in it, is has to be entirely rejected...

[d000hg]

Maybe I've missed an important part of your discussion, but the word Christian is used in the new testament.

[d000hg]

Yeah, but according to NoUserName, since wikipedia has errors and inconsistencies in it, is has to be entirely rejected...

NoUserName is a bit inconsistent, maybe we should remove him from the record too?

[NotAllThere]

I can't find it, but I did see on Amazon a few months ago a book by a chap who maintains, and provides evidence, that the Roman empire was in fact around much more recently than generally believed. Sounds like fruit-loopery to me, but just shows what you can find if you look hard enough for a contrary view. Doesn't make it less silly though...

NoUserName is a bit inconsistent, maybe we should remove him from the record too?

You're right. He's now been entirely rebuffed!

[speling bee]

Yeah but most historians don't care as:

I would not describe that as accurate. Wiki has a pretty good page. Have a look and make your own mind up. But do it from an independent view, not one that wants Jesus not to be real.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia