Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

[_SteelHead]

Jesus is dead. His 2nd coming is a non event.

There are 2 commonalities across all of Christianity.
1. They all believe Jesus will return.
2. They are all wrong.

[_Kishkumen]

I grow weary of these idiotic claims about "zero contemporary references" to famous historical figure x. They usually result from ignorance of the state of the evidence. I recall how DCP, relying on Christian apologetics, claimed this about Alexander the Great. Presumably this was shown to be obviously wrong, so now they have chosen Hannibal.

‘I first enlisted at seventeen, when Hannibal was having his run of luck, setting Italy on fire’ (Cato, Speeches 187-8).

This is a fragment of a speech of Cato the Elder, who fought in the Hannibalic War. In other words, he is an ancient person, who lived in the time of Hannibal, fought on the Roman side against Hannibal, and spoke/wrote about it. His testimony to that fact survives. Hannibal apologetic for Jesus fails.

[_huckelberry]

I grow weary of these idiotic claims about "zero contemporary references" to famous historical figure x. They usually result from ignorance of the state of the evidence. I recall how DCP, relying on Christian apologetics, claimed this about Alexander the Great. Presumably this was shown to be obviously wrong, so now they have chosen Hannibal.

‘I first enlisted at seventeen, when Hannibal was having his run of luck, setting Italy on fire’ (Cato, Speeches 187-8).

This is a fragment of a speech of Cato the Elder, who fought in the Hannibalic War. In other words, he is an ancient person, who lived in the time of Hannibal, fought on the Roman side against Hannibal, and spoke/wrote about it. His testimony to that fact survives. Hannibal apologetic for Jesus fails.

It makes a person wonder if there is any first century discussion of Jesus.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Don't you think that if the Romans could have produced the body of Christ they would have put it in a donkey cart and drove it up and down the streets of Jerusalem saying, "here he is!" Why do you think the disciples, fearful and hiding, all of a sudden "manned up" and went out and preached Christ? They were changed - they had seen the Lord! Sure there were other messianic type figures, but only the followers of Jesus Christ went into all the world and preached Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ coming again!

That doesn't answer the question of how you know these events you believe in really happened. The stories are written well after, and there is little to go on, so how do you know they happened as you believe? I am trying to get how one knows something is true.

If, as I think, Caligula's attempt to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in 40 AD/CE was the abomination of desolation referred to in Mark, then that dates Mark to 40 AD/CE. (Caligula was liquidated within a year.) I do not consider 40 AD/CE to be "well after," especially for an ancient account of a historical person. I also think John is an early gospel.

As for Servant knowing that these events occurred, I imagine she has read them and finds them credible. But I will let her speak to that, provided she elects to answer you.

[_Chap]

[quoteI don't want to express a judgement about either of those books. But I wonder whether we shall ever see an example of Calculus Crusader referring to someone he disagrees with, without labeling that person as in some way mentally defective? It is a strange mental tic, and one what makes me glad I am only interacting with him in cyberspace.

You should have known him back in the days when he was defending Mormonism! New content, same form.

OMG. Absolutely unexpected.

And since he says in a later post that he was not born in the church, that suggests that he actually converted to Mormonism at an age when he was capable of deciding for himself. If that was the case, and given that he is obviously an intelligent and articulate person, it adds huge layers of weirdness to his already somewhat unusual characteristics.

Yet another example of why this board is such an interesting place.

[_Themis]

That doesn't answer the question of how you know these events you believe in really happened. The stories are written well after, and there is little to go on, so how do you know they happened as you believe? I am trying to get how one knows something is true.

If, as I think, Caligula's attempt to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in 40 AD/CE was the abomination of desolation referred to in Mark, then that dates Mark to 40 AD/CE. (Caligula was liquidated within a year.) I do not consider 40 AD/CE to be "well after," especially for an ancient account of a historical person. I also think John is an early gospel.

As for Servant knowing that these events occurred, I imagine she has read them and finds them credible. But I will let her speak to that, provided she elects to answer you.

I think Servant has run away. I have noticed in this and another thread a reluctance to discuss how she knows Jesus was resurrected and is God. There is so little historical evidence about Jesus that people still argue over whether he existed as a real person. I am not interested in that question, but how we know Jesus was really God. If there is little to know he existed, then there is even less to know from the physical evidence available that he was God and was resurrected.

Her question started with "Do you believe that if there is a God He is interested in you, and wants to communicate with you?". My response was "If God does exist then she hasn't tried to communicate with me. At least not in a reasonable way I would know it was from her and what the message is". I think she thinks the Bible is suppose to be the communication, but I consider this terrible communication since we cannot confirm it is true. Especially the supernatural claims. How do you know these claims are true?

[_Calculus Crusader]

You should have known him back in the days when he was defending Mormonism! New content, same form.

OMG. Absolutely unexpected.

And since he says in a later post that he was not born in the church, that suggests that he actually converted to Mormonism at an age when he was capable of deciding for himself. If that was the case, and given that he is obviously an intelligent and articulate person, it adds huge layers of weirdness to his already somewhat unusual characteristics.

Yet another example of why this board is such an interesting place.

I first became familiar with the Mormon Church when I was 10 via an aunt who had converted and I joined when I was 12, which required parental permission. Thankfully, no one else in my family was persuaded by my youthful enthusiasm to join the Mormon Church. The scales fell from my eyes when I was 19, although it took me sometime thereafter to transition out.

[_Calculus Crusader]

If, as I think, Caligula's attempt to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in 40 AD/CE was the abomination of desolation referred to in Mark, then that dates Mark to 40 AD/CE. (Caligula was liquidated within a year.) I do not consider 40 AD/CE to be "well after," especially for an ancient account of a historical person. I also think John is an early gospel.

As for Servant knowing that these events occurred, I imagine she has read them and finds them credible. But I will let her speak to that, provided she elects to answer you.

I think Servant has run away. I have noticed in this and another thread a reluctance to discuss how she knows Jesus was resurrected and is God. There is so little historical evidence about Jesus that people still argue over whether he existed as a real person. I am not interested in that question, but how we know Jesus was really God. If there is little to know he existed, then there is even less to know from the physical evidence available that he was God and was resurrected.

Her question started with "Do you believe that if there is a God He is interested in you, and wants to communicate with you?". My response was "If God does exist then she hasn't tried to communicate with me. At least not in a reasonable way I would know it was from her and what the message is". I think she thinks the Bible is suppose to be the communication, but I consider this terrible communication since we cannot confirm it is true. Especially the supernatural claims. How do you know these claims are true?

I disagree about the evidence for Jesus. I believe it is sufficient, especially given that he lived as a first century peasant (albeit, a very special one) in a province that the Romans did not generally give much thought to unless something occurred in or around it that required their attention (e.g., a revolt or an invasion). As for the resurrection, you either find the accounts credible or you do not.

[_Themis]

I disagree about the evidence for Jesus. I believe it is sufficient, especially given that he lived as a first century peasant (albeit, a very special one) in a province that the Romans did not generally give much thought to unless something occurred in or around it that required their attention (e.g., a revolt or an invasion). As for the resurrection, you either find the accounts credible or you do not.

There is more evidence with Muhammad and the Koran. Do you believe he was a prophet of God and saw angles of God?

[_Calculus Crusader]

I disagree about the evidence for Jesus. I believe it is sufficient, especially given that he lived as a first century peasant (albeit, a very special one) in a province that the Romans did not generally give much thought to unless something occurred in or around it that required their attention (e.g., a revolt or an invasion). As for the resurrection, you either find the accounts credible or you do not.

There is more evidence with Muhammad and the Koran. Do you believe he was a prophet of God and saw angles of God?

If you are claiming that there are more surviving written accounts of Muhammad dating to within a reasonable window then that is possible. However, that does not necessarily equate to more evidence of his "prophethood." He lived several centuries after Jesus and was quite a successful warlord. So, it would not surprise me if more documents concerning him have survived. I think I am safe in saying that there is even more documentation for Joseph Smith (due to the era in which he lived) but it certainly does not help his case!