On religion

[MyUserName]

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

My bias is quite rational. I am reluctant to accept the NT as evidence that the NT is true, especially when it is heavily contradictory and does not have support from any other sources

There are no records where anti-christian writers say that Jesus didn't exist.

Hmmm ... I have never looked for source where people at the time argue against him existing. I am not sure that not finding them would prove very much though.

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.

He is free to - just as I am free to again point out that they are not primary sources and were gathered from hearsay as they lived after Jesus is claimed to have died.

Anyway - the point remains that not one historian or official document at the time mentions Jesus apart from Josephus who is considered unreliable.

Everything else is hearsay and rumour and I do not consider that to be sufficient evidence. You clearly do.

We are going around in circles and getting absolutely nowhere.

Is there anything else I have said which you disagree on, perhaps we could take about that instead?

[d000hg]

A bit like the myth Jesus visited England.

[BrilloPad]

A bit like the myth Jesus visited England.

Of course he did! There is a song about it.....

[TestMangler]

A bit like the myth Jesus visited England.

You sure you're not getting mixed up with Elvis ??

[BrilloPad]

You sure you're not getting mixed up with Elvis ??

Jesus visited Elvis?

[MyUserName]

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

Sorry, I meant recognised historians outside of the NT.

You also seem to think historians just sit about writing down everything they see.

Well not really otherwise the best historian would just be the one the the best view out of his window.

And of course, then as now academics probably don't like to record the supernatural as history.

Because it is not?

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

Yawn

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

I meant evidence that those Christians worshipped the same thing that was later written about by the gospel writers.

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.

Yeah, that was a bit of a sledge hammer comment. However, I am still skeptical about him but I will take a look.

[speling bee]

My bias is quite rational. I am reluctant to accept the NT as evidence that the NT is true, especially when it is heavily contradictory and does not have support from any other sources




Hmmm ... I have never looked for source where people at the time argue against him existing. I am not sure that not finding them would prove very much though.



He is free to - just as I am free to again point out that they are not primary sources and were gathered from hearsay as they lived after Jesus is claimed to have died.

Anyway - the point remains that not one historian or official document at the time mentions Jesus apart from Josephus who is considered unreliable.

Everything else is hearsay and rumour and I do not consider that to be sufficient evidence. You clearly do.

We are going around in circles and getting absolutely nowhere.

Is there anything else I have said which you disagree on, perhaps we could take about that instead?

But why would you consider an alternative narrative more likely?

And it is not reasonable to say the NT is contradictory and then dismiss it. There is a collection of sources that contradict each other in places, not one source called the New Testament.

Tacitus and Suetonius contradict each other in places. WE don't dismiss them but acknowledge their weaknesses. Try looking at source for 4th century Roman history, and they are all over the place. Some are good but biased: Ammianus Marcellinus, one is written in the 12th century (Zonaras). If you want a sympathetic account of Constantius II (who followed the Christian Arian heresy), Ammianus has weaknesses as he was a pagan and the extant Christian sources have weaknesses as they were anti-heretical. To get a sympathetic account you have to look at the Arian Philostorgius, whose work does not exist except in a critical epitome written by an orthodox Christian.

But you do not throw these sources out because they have weaknesses. You work with them and acknowledge their weaknesses and piece together something that is probably close to the truth.

[TestMangler]

Jesus visited Elvis?

Possibly the other way around

I'm happy to believe that neither visited England though.

[d000hg]

Sorry, I meant recognised historians outside of the NT.

What if it was so convincing they all became believers and wrote the NT?!

Because it is not?

Because even then it would ruin their credibility.

[speling bee]

I meant evidence that those Christians worshipped the same thing that was later written about by the gospel writers.

Let's say followed, rather than worshiped, because that is probably where the church was at this stage.

Christus fits with Jesus.
Executed under Tiberius fits with Jesus.

You have no better fit.