Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Written by Michael Gleghorn

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . 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. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.
5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.
9. Ibid., 27.
10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.
12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.
14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.
15. Ibid.
16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
18. Ibid.
19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But 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 perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).
20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.
21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.
24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.
25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.
26. Luke 23:2, 5.
27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

Tacitus writes from second-hand knowledge some 30 years after the death of Christ. This is not contemporaneous. Also of note is that he refers to the movement as a "mischevious superstition."

On top of all that, he makes no real reference to Christ the man or any of his supposed deeds. He merely mentions the followers for the most part.

Pliny the Younger is a long way chronographically removed from the events of Christ's life, and again is not contemporaneous to the events. All his letters can tell us is that there did exist a group of people who followed this new religion.

The evidence from Josephus has for the most part been accepted to be a later Christian interpolation. Part of the reason for this is the manner that the Testimonium refers to Christ. Since Josephus was a Jew until his death, it is impossible for him to have used words of such high regard for Christ and remained within his faith.

The second reason this is mostly accepted as being an interpolation is that the passage referring to Christ is far shorter and dereft of details than passages referring to others of the time.

The third reason is that the passage does not seem to fit Josephus' general writing style.

And the fourth reason is that the section in which the passage occurs flows much better stylistically with the passage removed.

I really know very little about the Talmud, but depending on where in the 70 - 200 CE period the passages quoted were written, it could very well be outside the realm of contemporary history.

Quote: › Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist.

This alone rules out the evidence from Lucian. He falls well beyond the scope of contemporaneous.

Also, there are only two of these histories that originated in the area where the supposed events took place; The Talmud and Josephus.

There are ample records from other historians in the area that are contemporaneous to the events in question, yet not a single one of them ever makes even the slightest mention of those events. It is this deafening silence that calls the historicity of the events into question.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Also, there are only two of these histories that originated in the area where the supposed events took place; The Talmud and Josephus. There are ample records from other historians in the area that are contemporaneous to the events in question, yet not a single one of them ever makes even the slightest mention of those events. It is this deafening silence that calls the historicity of the events into question.

Perhaps a quick thought. The events surround the ressurection of Christ [or the supposed ressurection] are, by any conceivable definition, miraculous.

Obviously, somebody coming back from the dead is miraculous in itself...but...looking at it...as if it was all a lie...

To date, thousands upon thousands of people have died...refusing to deny this "lie", each believing in it enough to give up their lives. Tracing this back to the grassroots of the movement, these "disciples" either (a) believed their own "lie" enough to die for it, or were complete idiots who felt it was okay to die for something they knew to be false. Assuming the latter, thousands of people followed these "crazy" "disciples" believing their "lie" or choosing death despite knowing that it was a "lie". Assuming the latter, it'd seem quite miraculous that thousands upon thousands of people would have their lives changed to the point of self-sacrifice...not to further themselves...but to love others...all because of a "lie".

Assuming the former, there must have been some pretty convincing evidence to lead to this self-sacrificial love presented.

Assuming that the disciples believed...it must have taken quite the miracle to (a) make them believe and (b) convince thousands upon thousands of others that this belief was true.

Now...this miracle, and yes, I do believe it is a miracle...of thousands (if not millions) of people willing to die merely to share this love that they believe God has brought to Earth...is, by all philosophical standards most likely the result of another, greater miracle.

What could this miracle be? I can't claim I was there to actually KNOW...but I can tell you this: some say that the greater miracle behind this...is that the resurrection is true.

Just a thought

That is an interesting thought, but we have to remember the context of the times.

1. Literacy rates were extremely low.
2. Educational standards were non-existant. In fact, education was something for those that had the money.
3. Beliefs in far crazier miraculous events, people, and deities were already in existence. In fact, many of the supposed miracles of Jesus have been located in the mythos of other religions in the time and place.

So, I do not find it all that difficult to believe that a great many people were persuaded to such an extent as they were in early Christianity. As for the early disciples, they have a similar problem as that of Jesus as regards historicity. That is to say that many of them fail to be mentioned outside the Bible. Plus, it doesn't help their case all that much that a great many modern biblical scholars think a lot of the NT to have been written anonymously and later attributed by early churh fathers to disciples.

Nator7821 wrote: › 1. Literacy rates were extremely low. 2. Educational standards were non-existant. In fact, education was something for those that had the money.

A valid point. However, literacy rates as such do not continue to be as low for similar examples today.

Nator7821 wrote: › 3. Beliefs in far crazier miraculous events, people, and deities were already in existence. In fact, many of the supposed miracles of Jesus have been located in the mythos of other religions in the time and place.

Perhaps a thought. While one could argue that this denied the validity of such claims of Christ followers...it could also be argued that these are, in fact, outside sources verifying such claims.

Nator7821 wrote: › So, I do not find it all that difficult to believe that a great many people were persuaded to such an extent as they were in early Christianity.

But what about today...and not just "at the time"...but "in time" between then and now?

Nator7821 wrote: › As for the early disciples, they have a similar problem as that of Jesus as regards historicity. That is to say that many of them fail to be mentioned outside the Bible. Plus, it doesn't help their case all that much that a great many modern biblical scholars think a lot of the NT to have been written anonymously and later attributed by early churh fathers to disciples.

Perhaps...but how often do we tend to recall anything under religious topics in today's world?

Furthermore, as per your own claim,

Nator7821 wrote: › 1. Literacy rates were extremely low. 2. Educational standards were non-existant. In fact, education was something for those that had the money.

Wouldn't this lead to a lack of recognition of a person who claimed that it's "nearly impossible" for the rich to enter heaven? Or, perhaps...not even a lack...but a complete ignorance of? In other words...consider this:

a.) I don't like Person A.
b.) I am the only person educated enough to write history books.
c.) I use my power to get Person A killed (i.e. crucified).
d.) I decide Person A, now dead [in my mind], no longer exists...or possibly no longer even existed at all [as if Person A never existed, I can never be labeled responsible for the death of person A]

...is this somehow unrealistic? If so, feel free to correct me.

Hoping to hear your thoughts.

Quote: › Perhaps a thought. While one could argue that this denied the validity of such claims of Christ followers...it could also be argued that these are, in fact, outside sources verifying such claims.

How so? Many of the same miraculous events purported to have been done by Jesus are actually predated by similar miraculous events purported to others. Healing the blind with mud and spit has been found in reference to one of the Roman emperors predating the time of Christ, for example.

Quote: › But what about today...and not just "at the time"...but "in time" between then and now?

There are ample socio-cultural explanations for continued belief once a belief system has been established to explain that. Continued and prolonged belief is insufficient to prove the validity of the claims in the Bible.

Quote: › Perhaps...but how often do we tend to recall anything under religious topics in today's world?

I fail to see the connection between this question and the problem presented.

Quote: › In other words...consider this: a.) I don't like Person A. b.) I am the only person educated enough to write history books. c.) I use my power to get Person A killed (I.e. crucified). d.) I decide Person A, now dead [in my mind], no longer exists...or possibly no longer even existed at all [as if Person A never existed, I can never be labeled responsible for the death of person A] ...is this somehow unrealistic? If so, feel free to correct me.

While this is possible, it is so extremely improbable as to not necessitate consideration. There are several reasons for this.
1. While literacy rates were low and educational standards non-existant, this by no means eliminates the fact that more than a few people could still read and write.
2. Romans are noted for having kept meticulous records of what their government did. If there was an execution, it appeared in documents, not all that different from today.

Factor in the fact that if read chronologically the gospel accounts of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus become more and more fantastical and mythical, and you can see that elements from other mythological themes are being added as time passes, and what is you begin to see is very unrelated to history, but very related to the formation of an offshoot religion incorporating elements from other beliefs to bolster appeal. I personally do not see this last bit as being done with conscious intent, but rather with the subconscious as the need to justify this set of beliefs in the face of alternative beliefs with greater appeal.

Nator7821 wrote: › How so? Many of the same miraculous events purported to have been done by Jesus are actually predated by similar miraculous events purported to others. Healing the blind with mud and spit has been found in reference to one of the Roman emperors predating the time of Christ, for example.

Consider, for a second, the validity of these other claims. As they hold about equal ground (if not lesser) as the claims of Christ's early followers, time basis could easily be a misconception. As such, the combination of such accounts could contribute to the possiblity that such an account DID happen, whether by Christ or otherwise. (Note: this does not specifically contribute to any one account, but it does add a consideration factor to each account)

Nator7821 wrote: › There are ample socio-cultural explanations for continued belief once a belief system has been established to explain that. Continued and prolonged belief is insufficient to prove the validity of the claims in the Bible.

Ok. Are there also ample socio-cultural explanations for continued beliefs where such belief often leads to persecution and/or death? While you're at it, are there also ample socio-cultural explanations for these continued beliefs when a person is raised believing something else?

Nator7821 wrote: › I fail to see the connection between this question and the problem presented.

I was reffering to this:

Nator7821 wrote: › That is to say that many of them fail to be mentioned outside the Bible.

Specifically, I was stating that many people are not "historically" recorded in relation to events deemed unimportant by the general public. This is taking a slight change in today's society with the overflow of information...however, such overflow did not exist in such times and as a result...your statement holds questionable validity at best.

Nator7821 wrote: › While this is possible, it is so extremely improbable as to not necessitate consideration.

Is it? Jesus was considered by many in his time to be nothing more than a heretic. Now...what leader would want records on such a heretic...especially in a time where information was not commonly recorded by religious authorities?

Nator7821 wrote: › 1. While literacy rates were low and educational standards non-existant, this by no means eliminates the fact that more than a few people could still read and write.

I can read and write. Does this mean that I'll record everything I ever see? On a deeper note...does this mean I'll record everything I deem as possibly important? If I see the clouds split open and God appear over the sunset, am I likely to record it?

...No, not really.

Nator7821 wrote: › 2. Romans are noted for having kept meticulous records of what their government did. If there was an execution, it appeared in documents, not all that different from today.

As per the Gospels...it wasn't the Romans who had a problem with Christ so much as the Jewish religious authorities of the day...namely, the Pharisees. Specifically referring to the Gospels, Pilate is said to have claimed to have "washed his hands" of the matter.

Anyhow, on that note...are you denying the death of Christ now?

Nator7821 wrote: › Factor in the fact that if read chronologically the gospel accounts of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus become more and more fantastical and mythical, and you can see that elements from other mythological themes are being added as time passes, and what is you begin to see is very unrelated to history, but very related to the formation of an offshoot religion incorporating elements from other beliefs to bolster appeal. I personally do not see this last bit as being done with conscious intent, but rather with the subconscious as the need to justify this set of beliefs in the face of alternative beliefs with greater appeal.

It would be unfair to deny such possibility, and so I will not and cannot. However, even if that was the case...how miraculous would it be for such an offshoot religion to take off like it did...specifically to the point where the Roman empire adopted it as the official state religion?

In comparison, try creating a religion today. Feel free to take aspects from other religions and include them. To satisfy your "uneducated" claim, feel free to take this religion to Africa or somewhere. Then, when you convert the continent (or even a country) and make them show self-sacrifical love to humankind...I'll consider that perhaps this is not so miraculous.

Quote: › Consider, for a second, the validity of these other claims. As they hold about equal ground (if not lesser) as the claims of Christ's early followers, time basis could easily be a misconception. As such, the combination of such accounts could contribute to the possiblity that such an account DID happen, whether by Christ or otherwise. (Note: this does not specifically contribute to any one account, but it does add a consideration factor to each account)

Given that all claims to miraculous events have not been testable or reproducible by any means really hurts their validity, in my opinion.

Considering that most of the supposed miracles of Jesus are extremely similar to previous reportings of miracles performed by others, it appears to me to make the whole lot of them less valid.

Quote: › Ok. Are there also ample socio-cultural explanations for continued beliefs where such belief often leads to persecution and/or death? While you're at it, are there also ample socio-cultural explanations for these continued beliefs when a person is raised believing something else?

To be blunt, yes. Why else would multiple groups of people continue to believe different sets of beliefs in the face of other sets of belief that claim more validity?

As for continuing belief where it leads to persecution or death, you needn't look very far. 1. Radical fundamentalist Islam. 2. Christians living in nations very hostile to them. 3. Any other place on earth where major religious tensions exist.

Quote: › Specifically, I was stating that many people are not "historically" recorded in relation to events deemed unimportant by the general public. This is taking a slight change in today's society with the overflow of information...however, such overflow did not exist in such times and as a result...your statement holds questionable validity at best.

Given the time, location, and message of these people, it is extremely unlikely (nearly impossible) that they could have done what they did without drawing the attention of somebody who would consider their endeavors worthy of recording, even if just to lambast them.

The deafening silence of contemporaneous historians of the area is the largest hurdle to overcome in proving the historicity of Jesus.

Quote: › Is it? Jesus was considered by many in his time to be nothing more than a heretic. Now...what leader would want records on such a heretic...especially in a time where information was not commonly recorded by religious authorities?

1. To make an example of him. And there would most definitely have been plenty willing to do that.

2. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was executed by Roman authorities, and they kept meticulous records. It would not have mattered to them enough to keep him from their records. And some historian in the area would surely have picked up the story and written about it, especially if some of the miraculous events recorded in some of the gospels is to be believed.

Quote: › I can read and write. Does this mean that I'll record everything I ever see? On a deeper note...does this mean I'll record everything I deem as possibly important? If I see the clouds split open and God appear over the sunset, am I likely to record it? ...No, not really.

You personally may not record such an event, but I can guarantee you that more than one person would record it. Now, if as one gospel says, the streets were filled with the dead walking, then I can guarantee you that quite a few people would have deemed that event important enough to record.

Quote: › As per the Gospels...it wasn't the Romans who had a problem with Christ so much as the Jewish religious authorities of the day...namely, the Pharisees. Specifically referring to the Gospels, Pilate is said to have claimed to have "washed his hands" of the matter.

To wash one's hands is to deny responsibility for what is to be done, not to strike it from the record.

Quote: › Anyhow, on that note...are you denying the death of Christ now?

No, I am questioning the validity of the claim that he even existed.

Quote: › It would be unfair to deny such possibility, and so I will not and cannot. However, even if that was the case...how miraculous would it be for such an offshoot religion to take off like it did...specifically to the point where the Roman empire adopted it as the official state religion?

Considering the vast amount of appeal elements and the removal of the deities from the human realm of squabble and squalor, not too difficult.

Quote: › In comparison, try creating a religion today. Feel free to take aspects from other religions and include them. To satisfy your "uneducated" claim, feel free to take this religion to Africa or somewhere. Then, when you convert the continent (or even a country) and make them show self-sacrifical love to humankind...I'll consider that perhaps this is not so miraculous.

It has already been done to some degree, and the religion is gaining ground. Study Ba'hai to learn more about this.

Nator7821 wrote: › As for continuing belief where it leads to persecution or death, you needn't look very far. 1. Radical fundamentalist Islam. 2. Christians living in nations very hostile to them. 3. Any other place on earth where major religious tensions exist.

I didn't say "do such circumstances exist?" I said "how do you explain it?"

Nator7821 wrote: › Given the time, location, and message of these people, it is extremely unlikely (nearly impossible) that they could have done what they did without drawing the attention of somebody who would consider their endeavors worthy of recording, even if just to lambast them.

...and so these were put into a book known as the Bible...

Nator7821 wrote: › The deafening silence of contemporaneous historians of the area is the largest hurdle to overcome in proving the historicity of Jesus.

Perhaps. However, due to the multitude of possibilities as to how this could occur, this does not make a valid argument that Jesus is misrepresented by the writers (note: plural) of the Bible.

Nator7821 wrote: › You personally may not record such an event, but I can guarantee you that more than one person would record it. Now, if as one gospel says, the streets were filled with the dead walking, then I can guarantee you that quite a few people would have deemed that event important enough to record.

Perhaps. And perhaps a couple hundred years later a counsel of people might decide that certain parts of these writings are the most historically accurate. Then, perhaps, they would compile the "accurate" ones into a book and burn the ones they feel are inaccurate. Now, the only question remaining is...which are accurate?

Nator7821 wrote: › No, I am questioning the validity of the claim that he even existed.

Do you also question the validity of the claim that the disciples who died claiming Him to be Messiah? Or did they just randomly decide that it was worthy to die for an imaginary figure? ...and millions just...agreed? This sounds like quite a leap of faith to me, both in the part of "just agreeing" and in believing this to be a possibility.

Nator7821 wrote: › 1. To make an example of him. And there would most definitely have been plenty willing to do that. 2. If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus was executed by Roman authorities, and they kept meticulous records. It would not have mattered to them enough to keep him from their records. And some historian in the area would surely have picked up the story and written about it, especially if some of the miraculous events recorded in some of the gospels is to be believed.

Just how complete is our collection of Roman records from the time?

Nator7821 wrote: › Considering the vast amount of appeal elements and the removal of the deities from the human realm of squabble and squalor, not too difficult.

I would argue, quite to the contrary, that such an idea would seem so ridiculous to the Roman people that it would hold little appeal. Unless, of course, a sizable amount of the Roman people had come to believe in such a religion despite being persecuted and killed by their own government for it...

Nator7821 wrote: › It has already been done to some degree, and the religion is gaining ground. Study Ba'hai to learn more about this

Firstly, this has not held the impact I am referring to. There are no converted nations or even cities.

Furthermore, this faith holds ground with less than 1% (one percent) of the world population...with no true focal point. This, in reality, is no different than claiming that Universal Unitarians have done the same.

Nator7821 wrote: › Given that all claims to miraculous events have not been testable or reproducible by any means really hurts their validity, in my opinion.

Firstly, not *all* miraculous events are not reproducible. Consider, for example, birth.

Second, I can't re-create any method of this planet coming into existence as we know it. By your definition, it makes the only sound argument become that we don't exist at all...because there is no planet, Mr. Anderson. (Never thought I'd find someone actually willing to buy into Matrix theology, but hey!)

Nator7821 wrote: › To be blunt, yes. Why else would multiple groups of people continue to believe different sets of beliefs in the face of other sets of belief that claim more validity?

You say this explanations exist...what are they?

Nator7821 wrote: › Considering that most of the supposed miracles of Jesus are extremely similar to previous reportings of miracles performed by others, it appears to me to make the whole lot of them less valid.

I guess you're right. More people believing that something happened must make it less likely to have happened. Therefore, since millions of people believe there was a Holocaust, there has been no such Holocaust. Actually, on that note, there was no 9/11, there is no Bin Laden, there is no War on Iraq, and there never was. There is no United States, because so many believe there is, and on that note, there is no world. We don't exist. Thank you for your time, Mr. Anderson. Wait, time doesn't exist either, and neither do you...by the theology you're presenting.

Poet wrote (View Post): › I guess you're right. More people believing that something happened must make it less likely to have happened. Therefore, since millions of people believe there was a Holocaust, there has been no such Holocaust. Actually, on that note, there was no 9/11, there is no Bin Laden, there is no War on Iraq, and there never was. There is no United States, because so many believe there is, and on that note, there is no world. We don't exist. Thank you for your time, Mr. Anderson. Wait, time doesn't exist either, and neither do you...by the theology you're presenting.

I found that kind-of funny

Quote: › I didn't say "do such circumstances exist?" I said "how do you explain it?"

Culture is a very strong beast. Oftentimes people will do, think, or believe certain things because it is part of the culture to which they belong, usually from the culture in which they were born. In fact, if one were to separate himself from his native culture to live with a vastly different culture, he would go through what is called Culture Shock before he could even adjust to the new ways of life being presented to him. Most people who go through culture shock never fully accept the new culture. Some have lost their lives because they were unable to accept different ways of life (and not just religious).

Religious beliefs are part of culture, and as such can be viewed through that lens. When viewed through this lens, it isn't that big a stretch for a religious group to persist in the face of dire problems. In fact, the strong sense of community found within religion makes the persistence of such groups far more likely than I could even fathom. This is part of the attraction and power of modern cults.

Quote: › ...and so these were put into a book known as the Bible...

I thought the point of contention here was extra-biblical evidences. Considering my statement in that light means that I was saying it is still extremely unlikely that the only source it would appear in would be the Bible.

Quote: › Perhaps. However, due to the multitude of possibilities as to how this could occur, this does not make a valid argument that Jesus is misrepresented by the writers (note: plural) of the Bible.

What multitude of possibilities could make the events described by the authors of the Bible (some of them extremely extraordinary) of little to no consequence to the historians of that exact time and place? I can think of nothing that would make some of those events just fail to appear in any one of the histories of those contemporaneous authors.

Quote: › Perhaps. And perhaps a couple hundred years later a counsel of people might decide that certain parts of these writings are the most historically accurate. Then, perhaps, they would compile the "accurate" ones into a book and burn the ones they feel are inaccurate. Now, the only question remaining is...which are accurate?

And that's a different set of problems.

1. A council of men decides what stays and what doesn't. Not exactly inspiring faith that the book is not man-made.

2. This setup actually destroys evidence that could otherwise be used to validate claims.

3. Even a council of men would be incapable of knowing and destroying all outside evidences.

Quote: › Do you also question the validity of the claim that the disciples who died claiming Him to be Messiah? Or did they just randomly decide that it was worthy to die for an imaginary figure? ...and millions just...agreed? This sounds like quite a leap of faith to me, both in the part of "just agreeing" and in believing this to be a possibility.

I question the beliefs of the disciples. I do not question that they believed them so strongly as to be willing to die for them. I do the same with radical Muslims willing to die for their faith. I do the same for Hindi that are willing to die for their faith. Why should I apply a different set of standards to any other person or group that would be willing to do the same?

Quote: › Just how complete is our collection of Roman records from the time?

While not totally complete, our collection of Roman records from the time is complete enough to make certain conclusions regarding their silence on these matters.

Quote: › I would argue, quite to the contrary, that such an idea would seem so ridiculous to the Roman people that it would hold little appeal. Unless, of course, a sizable amount of the Roman people had come to believe in such a religion despite being persecuted and killed by their own government for it...

When one factors in previously existing beliefs in a god-man that sacrifices himself to save humanity, coupled with crediting this savior with miracles that had previously been credited to others, it isn't really that far a jump. It is a similar tactic that was used to convert other peoples to Christianity later on. That is why Easter is a Christian holiday now and set close to spring equinox. Easter was a pagan fertility holiday that celebrated the arrival of spring. The tactic works well.

Quote: › Firstly, this has not held the impact I am referring to. There are no converted nations or even cities. Furthermore, this faith holds ground with less than 1% (one percent) of the world population...with no true focal point. This, in reality, is no different than claiming that Universal Unitarians have done the same.

If I recall correctly, you did not ask for a major world religion. You asked for a religion. Ba'hai is growing and gaining in both strength and numbers. New religions need time, and Ba'hai is very young. Christianity did not spring up over night. In fact, most Roman records indicate that it took Christianity at least two or so centuries after the supposed death and resurrection of Christ to gain a strong enough following for it to even be noticeable as a religion. Who is to say at this point what will become of Ba'hai in that amount of time?

Quote: › Firstly, not *all* miraculous events are not reproducible. Consider, for example, birth. Second, I can't re-create any method of this planet coming into existence as we know it. By your definition, it makes the only sound argument become that we don't exist at all...because there is no planet, Mr. Anderson. (Never thought I'd find someone actually willing to buy into Matrix theology, but hey!)

This in no way affects my argument, because the vast amount of miracles reported in the Bible are not on the level of creating a planet, and some of them are actually said to be within the realm of a true believer to be able to do.

As a side note, some theoretical physicists think they may have discovered a way for us to create another universe, though we are still a good ways away from being capable of actually doing so. It is a case of the technology not being as advanced as the ideas.

Quote: › You say this explanations exist...what are they?

Anthropological and sociological studies have shown that there is a strong desire within humanity to be part of a community of some sort. When removed from one's own cultural surroundings for long enough, one begins to adopt portions of the culture in which one is. As religion is a very strong bind that leads to formation of community, it is easy to see someone removed from their culture and community adopting or accepting to some degree the religious beliefs of those around him so that he can become part of that community.

Does this happen to everyone? No. Some resist getting this deep into a new culture. Others either cannot resist to that level or actually welcome the change.

Quote: › I guess you're right. More people believing that something happened must make it less likely to have happened.

This is a branch of the logical fallacy of popularity. It basically states that the more people that believe something, the more likely it is to be true. This simply is not the case.

Miracles are extraordinary events, and as such, they require extraordinary evidences. A lot of people believing them is not an extraordinary evidence. A lot of people honestly believe that they see Mary's face on a burrito shell. Does that mean that Mary's face it on that shell? Or is it not just as likely that her face is not there and is a trick of the eye? If the image is there, does it mean that it was divinely put there? Or is it not just as likely to be a random coincidence?

Thus far, there has not been any evidence to corroborate these purported miracles. In fact, in some instances, the evidence points directly away from them.

But as to my statement, the fact that many of the miracles attributed to Jesus existed previously and were attributed to others to me makes the event far less likely to have actually occurred.

Quote: › Therefore, since millions of people believe there was a Holocaust, there has been no such Holocaust. Actually, on that note, there was no 9/11, there is no Bin Laden, there is no War on Iraq, and there never was. There is no United States, because so many believe there is, and on that note, there is no world. We don't exist. Thank you for your time, Mr. Anderson. Wait, time doesn't exist either, and neither do you...by the theology you're presenting.

This is stupid. I have physical evidences of a Holocaust. I have physical evidences for what happened on 9/11. I have physical evidences for the existence of bin Laden. In fact, I have physical evidences for every single thing on your list.

What I don't have is a single physical evidence for any out of the ordinary miraculous event.

Now, do you want to make a valid point or continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning? Do you want to continue building straw men of my arguments? They are easier to deal with than the real points, unless the person you are debating with happens to catch and call you when you do it.

Nator7821 wrote: › Culture is a very strong beast. Oftentimes people will do, think, or believe certain things because it is part of the culture to which they belong, usually from the culture in which they were born. In fact, if one were to separate himself from his native culture to live with a vastly different culture, he would go through what is called Culture Shock before he could even adjust to the new ways of life being presented to him. Most people who go through culture shock never fully accept the new culture. Some have lost their lives because they were unable to accept different ways of life (and not just religious). Religious beliefs are part of culture, and as such can be viewed through that lens. When viewed through this lens, it isn't that big a stretch for a religious group to persist in the face of dire problems. In fact, the strong sense of community found within religion makes the persistence of such groups far more likely than I could even fathom. This is part of the attraction and power of modern cults.

...and you see nothing miraculous about a faith prospering in a culture where it is condemned? You see nothing miraculous about unconditional love when boiled to death or beheaded for it? Funny...that's the difference between you and I. I believe life has a purpose. You, obviously, don't.

Nator7821 wrote: › I thought the point of contention here was extra-biblical evidences. Considering my statement in that light means that I was saying it is still extremely unlikely that the only source it would appear in would be the Bible.

In a sense, yes. However, it must also be considered that, as the Bible was not compiled until 200 years after the fact, any evidences within the Bible are likewise extra-Biblical. In other words, each "book" in the Bible was originally written with no intention [by the author] to compile it into a "Bible"

Secondly, my other example [books being admitted/rejected] could easily explain a large portion of many [if not all] sources becoming part of the Bible or ceasing to exist within our current records.

Nator7821 wrote: › What multitude of possibilities could make the events described by the authors of the Bible (some of them extremely extraordinary) of little to no consequence to the historians of that exact time and place? I can think of nothing that would make some of those events just fail to appear in any one of the histories of those contemporaneous authors.

If that is truly the case...then take a random selection of authors today comparative to those who were contemporaries of that time. With that selection, randomly pick a minor influence contradictory to common society. (Try a cult that has caused no negative influence on anything, for example). Now...consider how many would [realistically] make records of this cult [which may or may not even be publicly known, as it was punishable by death to believe anything other than the state religion]. Now...add time decay to that, subtract all writings of those who believed the cult to be true [iow, subtract the Bible]...and see what you have left two thousand years later. I really don't see how you have trouble with seeing how absurd this is...

Nator7821 wrote: › And that's a different set of problems. 1. A council of men decides what stays and what doesn't. Not exactly inspiring faith that the book is not man-made. 2. This setup actually destroys evidence that could otherwise be used to validate claims. 3. Even a council of men would be incapable of knowing and destroying all outside evidences.

1.) I never said the book wasn't man-made. I personally believe it to be inspired by God, yes. I also recognize, however, that it was not handed down in it's entirety on two stone tablets.

2.) That's my point.

3.) In today's society, perhaps not. However, with a limited capability to read and write and already existing time decay, this counsel would likely have access to a huge majority of such writings. Considering this to be hundreds of years before today...and considering the control these men and their successors had over society for hundreds of years after that point, this is far more plausible than you're admitting.

Nator7821 wrote: › I question the beliefs of the disciples. I do not question that they believed them so strongly as to be willing to die for them. I do the same with radical Muslims willing to die for their faith. I do the same for Hindi that are willing to die for their faith. Why should I apply a different set of standards to any other person or group that would be willing to do the same?

So you do. However, if they were believing something insane (simultaneously being willing to love unconditionally unto death for a person who doesn't even exist)...and manage to sucessfully convert countless followers (each of whom became an outcast for converting...even to the point of being killed for these beliefs)...quite the miracle (or...since we're denying miracles exist now...quite the "coincidence")...isn't it?

In another light...have you seen a massive explosion of Islam...say...in China?

Nator7821 wrote: › While not totally complete, our collection of Roman records from the time is complete enough to make certain conclusions regarding their silence on these matters.

I disagree. Especially considering that we are examining the grassroots of a faith that was considered treason at the time.

Further: if these records lack the existence of Christ...I'm quite sure that they don't lack the history of the "heretics" who died in His name...

Nator7821 wrote: › If I recall correctly, you did not ask for a major world religion. You asked for a religion. Ba'hai is growing and gaining in both strength and numbers. New religions need time, and Ba'hai is very young. Christianity did not spring up over night. In fact, most Roman records indicate that it took Christianity at least two or so centuries after the supposed death and resurrection of Christ to gain a strong enough following for it to even be noticeable as a religion. Who is to say at this point what will become of Ba'hai in that amount of time?

Yes and no. According to the books recorded in the Bible, it pretty much...did. (See Acts for details). [Furthermore, for repeatable observations, witness Christianity springing up in...say...China].

Finally...I'll believe you that these Roman records are truly accurate as soon as you can give me proof that we have government records today of every illegal act occuring in America at every given moment of every given day...and that Roman officials at the time had comparable observational influence.

Nator7821 wrote: › This in no way affects my argument, because the vast amount of miracles reported in the Bible are not on the level of creating a planet, and some of them are actually said to be within the realm of a true believer to be able to do. As a side note, some theoretical physicists think they may have discovered a way for us to create another universe, though we are still a good ways away from being capable of actually doing so. It is a case of the technology not being as advanced as the ideas.

Once again, the key difference in our arguments lies in the beliefs as to what is and is not a miracle. I would argue that development of such technology would indeed prove miraculous. Your argument so far, on the other hand, would argue that it's just coincidental that a universe just happened to form a single-celled organism that just happened to become a fish that just happened to become a land-walking animal that just happened to become a rat that just happened to become a monkey that just happened to become a human that just happened to discover fire and just happened to keep developing to the technilogical level we are currently at. I guess it comes down to the saying...you can live as though everything is a miracle, or as though nothing is.

Nator7821 wrote: › Anthropological and sociological studies have shown that there is a strong desire within humanity to be part of a community of some sort. When removed from one's own cultural surroundings for long enough, one begins to adopt portions of the culture in which one is. As religion is a very strong bind that leads to formation of community, it is easy to see someone removed from their culture and community adopting or accepting to some degree the religious beliefs of those around him so that he can become part of that community. Does this happen to everyone? No. Some resist getting this deep into a new culture. Others either cannot resist to that level or actually welcome the change.

...And these studies would make it absurd for a person to abandon a community in order to follow a religion that would outcast them from it. Quite the..."coincidence" that people did anyhow, right?

Nator7821 wrote: › This is a branch of the logical fallacy of popularity. It basically states that the more people that believe something, the more likely it is to be true. This simply is not the case.

I'm sorry, but please forgive my attempt at satire. Your quote above was the point that I was trying to make. You had argued that more people believed in miracles that have been attributed to Christ, therefore it was less likely to be true. I was telling you that your statement was absurd...albeit indirectly.

Nator7821 wrote: › If the image is there, does it mean that it was divinely put there? Or is it not just as likely to be a random coincidence?

If the image is there, it is likely a coincidence. However, is it not possible that it is equally likely to be miraculous in nature? Hence my point.

Nator7821 wrote: › his is stupid. I have physical evidences of a Holocaust. I have physical evidences for what happened on 9/11. I have physical evidences for the existence of bin Laden. In fact, I have physical evidences for every single thing on your list.

Once again, please forgive my attempt at satire. This was a direct relation to my last point...which you have already stated.

Nator7821 wrote: › What I don't have is a single physical evidence for any out of the ordinary miraculous event.

Once again, that depends on your idea of a miracle. Unless this entire planet is a mere "coincidence", life itself is physical evidence for a very out of the ordinary miraculous event.

Nator7821 wrote: › Now, do you want to make a valid point or continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning

I have. You've merely refused to acknowledge it.

Nator7821 wrote: › Do you want to continue building straw men of my arguments? They are easier to deal with than the real points, unless the person you are debating with happens to catch and call you when you do it.

Yet again, I apologize that you have taken an attempt at satire as a straw-man...but you already stated the very point which I was stating about your comment...specifically: "what people believe doesn't affect the truth"

Now, whether there is need for further discussion lies in this next question which you must ask yourself: do you believe in miracles...or do you believe that everything is merely coincidental?

If you believe in miracles, and that miraculous events can occur, then perhaps further discussion could be necessary.

However, if you refuse to acknowledge a possibility, then there is no point in me discussing events with a fanatical skeptic.

Quote: › ...and you see nothing miraculous about a faith prospering in a culture where it is condemned? You see nothing miraculous about unconditional love when boiled to death or beheaded for it? Funny...that's the difference between you and I. I believe life has a purpose. You, obviously, don't.

Given the many similarities between early Christianity an other religions of the area, no I do not.

Quote: › In a sense, yes. However, it must also be considered that, as the Bible was not compiled until 200 years after the fact, any evidences within the Bible are likewise extra-Biblical. In other words, each "book" in the Bible was originally written with no intention [by the author] to compile it into a "Bible" Secondly, my other example [books being admitted/rejected] could easily explain a large portion of many [if not all] sources becoming part of the Bible or ceasing to exist within our current records.

While the first must be considered, it fails to answer the deafening silence of the non-converted, non-Christian historians and writers in the area at that exact time. Some of the events described in the books of the Bible are of such a nature that it would literally be impossible for all of those people to have been completely ignorant of them.

As for the second point, a council of men can only obtain and destroy so much of competing claims. This is evidenced by some rather recent finds of Gnostic gospel, which was despised and considered a heresy by those councils of men. Yet they were unable to completely obliterate all record of their existence, and even left some of their writings to be found. If the councils were so inefficient at destroying every vestige of a heretical group, what makes you think they would be any more efficient at destroying everything else?

Quote: › If that is truly the case...then take a random selection of authors today comparative to those who were contemporaries of that time. With that selection, randomly pick a minor influence contradictory to common society. (Try a cult that has caused no negative influence on anything, for example). Now...consider how many would [realistically] make records of this cult [which may or may not even be publicly known, as it was punishable by death to believe anything other than the state religion]. Now...add time decay to that, subtract all writings of those who believed the cult to be true [iow, subtract the Bible]...and see what you have left two thousand years later. I really don't see how you have trouble with seeing how absurd this is...

One event described in the Bible around the death and resurrection of Christ is that the dead got out of their graves and walked the streets. Now, anybody with half a lick of common sense would know that nobody of that time in that area would find such an event so unremarkable as to leave it out of their writings. Yet not a single source outside the Bible mentions it.

How you fail to see the absurdity of your claim is beyond my ability to fathom.

Quote: › 3.) In today's society, perhaps not. However, with a limited capability to read and write and already existing time decay, this counsel would likely have access to a huge majority of such writings. Considering this to be hundreds of years before today...and considering the control these men and their successors had over society for hundreds of years after that point, this is far more plausible than you're admitting.

Points one and two aren't all that bothersome. Point three however fails, and I have already provided an example earlier in this post.

Gnostic gospels have been found today. They are dated at about the same age as most other old Christian texts. It was considered a heresy by the councils to which you refer, and they attempted to completely eradicate it (destroying texts and killing adherents). Yet they failed to destroy every vestige of it. So, what makes you think they would be any more efficient at destroying everything else?

Quite simply, they could not have been that efficient.

Quote: › So you do. However, if they were believing something insane (simultaneously being willing to love unconditionally unto death for a person who doesn't even exist)...and manage to sucessfully convert countless followers (each of whom became an outcast for converting...even to the point of being killed for these beliefs)...quite the miracle (or...since we're denying miracles exist now...quite the "coincidence")...isn't it? In another light...have you seen a massive explosion of Islam...say...in China?

Islam is a perfect example. In its earliest stages, it caught on much faster than early Christianity. In fact, it is growing today at a faster rate than Christianity.

The speed with which beliefs catch on and the number of adherents it gathers does not and cannot make its claims any more or less valid. The claims either stand or fall on their own.

Quote: › I disagree. Especially considering that we are examining the grassroots of a faith that was considered treason at the time. Further: if these records lack the existence of Christ...I'm quite sure that they don't lack the history of the "heretics" who died in His name...

In its earliest stages, Christianity meant next to nothing to the Romans. It was nothing more than another competing religious claim among many others. It was, however, considered much more dangerous by Jewish adherents.

Futhermore, I'm not exactly looking for records about Christ, but at least some corroboration of the events described by the biblical authors. Some of the incidents they describe are of such a nature that it would be a phenomenal oversight for them to be omitted from the annals of contemporary historians.

Quote: › Yes and no. According to the books recorded in the Bible, it pretty much...did. (See Acts for details). [Furthermore, for repeatable observations, witness Christianity springing up in...say...China]. Finally...I'll believe you that these Roman records are truly accurate as soon as you can give me proof that we have government records today of every illegal act occuring in America at every given moment of every given day...and that Roman officials at the time had comparable observational influence.

1. Christianity has gained a foothold in China, but not much more than that.

2. Your request is ridiculous. We have illegal acts in America that go unreported, and thus there are no reports of those. The same would be true for Rome. However, in America, every illegal or civil act that goes to court or results in jail time does have a record, and the Romans were very similar to us in that type of record keeping.

Quote: › Once again, the key difference in our arguments lies in the beliefs as to what is and is not a miracle. I would argue that development of such technology would indeed prove miraculous. Your argument so far, on the other hand, would argue that it's just coincidental that a universe just happened to form a single-celled organism that just happened to become a fish that just happened to become a land-walking animal that just happened to become a rat that just happened to become a monkey that just happened to become a human that just happened to discover fire and just happened to keep developing to the technilogical level we are currently at. I guess it comes down to the saying...you can live as though everything is a miracle, or as though nothing is.

If you define miracle so loosely, then nothing is a miracle. Either a miracle is something that defies conventional explanation, or it is not. If it is not, then what exactly constitutes a miracle?

Blurring, expanding, and being overly inclusive in a definition is a weakness in argumentation, not a strength. I refuse to treat it differently.

Quote: › ...And these studies would make it absurd for a person to abandon a community in order to follow a religion that would outcast them from it. Quite the..."coincidence" that people did anyhow, right?

Not really, studies in counter-cultures show that often times there is a strong desire within humans to create new and different communities.

The phenomenon you ascribe to being something big isn't really that big when you understand some of the complexities of the human beast.

Quote: › I'm sorry, but please forgive my attempt at satire. Your quote above was the point that I was trying to make. You had argued that more people believed in miracles that have been attributed to Christ, therefore it was less likely to be true. I was telling you that your statement was absurd...albeit indirectly.

No, you failed to understand my argument. My argument was that since the miracles attributed to Christ had been in existence in some form or another and attributed to other people, then it was more likely than not that the miracles did not happen (were made up to glorify another) and more specifically that in regards to Christ were most likely not true and were attached to him to increase the popularity of the image around which a new religion and order were being formed.

Quote: › If the image is there, it is likely a coincidence. However, is it not possible that it is equally likely to be miraculous in nature? Hence my point.

If the image is there, it is most likely due to random permutations of the material. This is all the more likely to be true if the image is seen on more than one item of that type, which given the vast amount of claims I have seen of this nature, appears to be the case.

Quote: › Once again, please forgive my attempt at satire. This was a direct relation to my last point...which you have already stated.

Satire aside, what you did was create a straw man argument you could then knock down with satire. Weak argumentation.

Quote: › I have. You've merely refused to acknowledge it.

Actually, for the most part, you have built straw men and refused to see my points. Your rebuttals are based on only further questioning my points and trying to point out holes. Thus far, you haven't pointed out any holes that weaken my contentions.

Quote: › Yet again, I apologize that you have taken an attempt at satire as a straw-man...but you already stated the very point which I was stating about your comment...specifically: "what people believe doesn't affect the truth"

If you understand that what people believe doesn't affect the truth, then why are you working so hard to make so many justifications for the lack of evidence to support your side of the argument?

Why are you arguing based on the uptake? Why argue by its survival? Why argue nominally based on numbers?

None of those can prove the assertions made.

Quote: › Now, whether there is need for further discussion lies in this next question which you must ask yourself: do you believe in miracles...or do you believe that everything is merely coincidental?

Before we can even enter that venue, you will have to define miracle in a meaningful manner. Is a miracle something outside the realm of normal explanation? Or can an everyday event be a miracle?

Fielding your question is useless if I don't even know how exactly you define miracle.

First of all, it's nice to know that you feel the need for ad hominem rather than actual discussion.

IOW:

Nator7821 wrote: › Satire aside, what you did was create a straw man argument you could then knock down with satire. Weak argumentation.

...especially after I pointed out that you said the very thing I was trying to say in your next post.

Now...let's get back on topic:

Nator7821 wrote: › Blurring, expanding, and being overly inclusive in a definition is a weakness in argumentation, not a strength. I refuse to treat it differently.

Unless you can give proof that life really can occur randomly, then life DOES remain a miracle. Otherwise, I have yet to see life randomly coming into existence remaining anywhere close to repeatable evidence. You can ignore or claim I'm blurring all you want...however, this merely shows fanatical skepticism.

Nator7821 wrote: › Actually, for the most part, you have built straw men and refused to see my points. Your rebuttals are based on only further questioning my points and trying to point out holes. Thus far, you haven't pointed out any holes that weaken my contentions.

If this is the case, then, by your definition, you have refused to see my points, instead attempting to repeatedly claim that I have been building straw-men.

Nator7821 wrote: › If the image is there, it is most likely due to random permutations of the material. This is all the more likely to be true if the image is seen on more than one item of that type, which given the vast amount of claims I have seen of this nature, appears to be the case.

Your problem here (which you seem to think I haven't mentioned...but have rather been building straw-men)...is that your view is refusing to allow the possibility that something other than "coincidence" is occuring. As I said, fanatical skepticism.

Nator7821 wrote: › Not really, studies in counter-cultures show that often times there is a strong desire within humans to create new and different communities. The phenomenon you ascribe to being something big isn't really that big when you understand some of the complexities of the human beast.

Can you provide examples of counter-cultures growing exponentially despite members being brutally killed for it?

Nator7821 wrote: › If you define miracle so loosely, then nothing is a miracle. Either a miracle is something that defies conventional explanation, or it is not. If it is not, then what exactly constitutes a miracle?

Conventional explanation fails to define how we came into existence. By your definition, that makes life itself a miracle. However, as you refuted that earlier, your argument so far has claimed that even miracles...aren't miracles. Therefore, you have proven yourself to be a fanatical skeptic.

Nator7821 wrote: › No, you failed to understand my argument. My argument was that since the miracles attributed to Christ had been in existence in some form or another and attributed to other people, then it was more likely than not that the miracles did not happen (were made up to glorify another) and more specifically that in regards to Christ were most likely not true and were attached to him to increase the popularity of the image around which a new religion and order were being formed.

...and the aliens are coming from Mars to get us now! (Sounds a little schizo, don't you think?)

Humor aside, your argument has no grounds. It is, by all definitions, a non-sequiter. "Somebody else is attributed to having done this so people must have attributed it to Christ to raise popularity"...really, think about how absurd that sounds.

However, if you wish to refuse the absurdity of it...then let's look at it in a different light. For a moment, assume that Christ is 100% true and every miracle attributed to Christ was perfermed by Christ. Now...by that definition, could it not be equally possible that other miracles similar could be attributed to other people of the time? Furthermore, taking the very words of Christ, Christ made a claim that His followers would do "even greater things" than He did, implying it highly possible that His followers would not only be "attributed" with miracles such as His own...but that some might even be doing the same...and greater.

Now, in that sense, if Christ's followers could perform "even greater" miracles, they had to acquire this ability from somewhere. The early Christian claim would be that such power came from God. However...Christianity (and Judiasm) at that time also admitted multiple other powerful beings...specifically, angels and demons. Taking things a step further...the greatest of these demons (and the greatest of angels at one point) according to these beliefs is a being named Lucifer (or Satan) who has been attributed with attempting to copy God's work.

...So, if Christ's story is 100% true...then it would make perfect sense that other examples of similar occurences would occur both before and after...either recieving power from God or another Higher Power (specifically Satan in this case).

Side note: the Flood referred to in Christian and Hebrew Scripture is also available in various records worldwide, some as far away as South America. Does this mean that the Flood was less likely to have occurred (i.e. everybody was just copying eachother's work)...or more likely (i.e. there was an event, and it may or may not have been blown out of proportion)?

Nator7821 wrote: › Futhermore, I'm not exactly looking for records about Christ, but at least some corroboration of the events described by the biblical authors. Some of the incidents they describe are of such a nature that it would be a phenomenal oversight for them to be omitted from the annals of contemporary historians.

Give me examples of what you believe a historian at that time would have a) known about and b) believed to be more than the crazy thoughts of a cult ... oh, and they cannot be c) somebody who actually believes what that "cult" says. Personally, I find it quite difficult to believe that anybody who saw this "cult" perform some of these phenomenons would manage to stay out of category (c)...however, feel free to present the pheonomena in question, and we can examine whatever points you feel are invalid.

Nator7821 wrote: › Islam is a perfect example. In its earliest stages, it caught on much faster than early Christianity. In fact, it is growing today at a faster rate than Christianity. The speed with which beliefs catch on and the number of adherents it gathers does not and cannot make its claims any more or less valid. The claims either stand or fall on their own.

How many people have been killed (not committed suicide, but have been killed) for being a Muslim? Is it even comparable to the number killed for being a Christian? If it is not, then Islam does not provide a worthy example.

Nator7821 wrote: › Points one and two aren't all that bothersome. Point three however fails, and I have already provided an example earlier in this post. Gnostic gospels have been found today. They are dated at about the same age as most other old Christian texts. It was considered a heresy by the councils to which you refer, and they attempted to completely eradicate it (destroying texts and killing adherents). Yet they failed to destroy every vestige of it. So, what makes you think they would be any more efficient at destroying everything else? Quite simply, they could not have been that efficient.

Many of these "gospels" have remained largely in question. However, assuming them to be from the time. As these...are NOT in the Bible...there's your extra-biblical source. You just defeated your own argument.

Nator7821 wrote: › One event described in the Bible around the death and resurrection of Christ is that the dead got out of their graves and walked the streets. Now, anybody with half a lick of common sense would know that nobody of that time in that area would find such an event so unremarkable as to leave it out of their writings. Yet not a single source outside the Bible mentions it.

The only place I can even find in the Bible mentioning the dead coming out of their graves (en masse) is considered to be something that has yet to happen, not something that has happened. If this is a misinterpretation on your part, I hope that helps. However, if this is an attempt to attack...shame on you.

Nator7821 wrote: › While the first must be considered, it fails to answer the deafening silence of the non-converted, non-Christian historians and writers in the area at that exact time. Some of the events described in the books of the Bible are of such a nature that it would literally be impossible for all of those people to have been completely ignorant of them.

At this point...I'm really wondering "what events" you're referring to. Unless, of course, you're just attempting to build a red herring.

Nator7821 wrote: › Given the many similarities between early Christianity an other religions of the area, no I do not.

...I have yet to see any other religion love unconditionally even unto dying so someone else could possibly have a better life. Actually, even modern Christianity often fails on that note...but that's another topic.

With this in point, your disbelief is based on an unrelated issue, making it either a) invalid or b) that of the fanatical skeptic.

Nator7821 wrote: › Before we can even enter that venue, you will have to define miracle in a meaningful manner. Is a miracle something outside the realm of normal explanation? Or can an everyday event be a miracle?

Yes, and yes. A miracle is something out of the realm of normal explanation. Hence we cannot truly explain life, we cannot explain the brain, etc.

However, an everyday event can also be a miracle. We cannot explain (fully) how life is created (referring to individual life creation...i.e. birth), although we have several ideas, therefore making birth in itself a miracle. Further, there are constant examples of medical miracles: things that happen in a hospital everyday...but are beyond normal explanation.

So, I would say that yes: the miraculous is that beyond normal explanation. However, I would also argue that life itself is included in that. If life itself is a miracle, then could it not be reasonably agreed that everything that exists as a result of life is likewise miraculous?

Nator7821 wrote: › If you understand that what people believe doesn't affect the truth, then why are you working so hard to make so many justifications for the lack of evidence to support your side of the argument?

You questioned my point. That in itself calls for an attempt to explain it: not to attempt to make it true or even convince you that it is true, but rather merely to explain where I'm coming from.

Beyond that, everything I've said has been in response to what you did (albeit your belief that I have not done so)...and so you've been invoking further discussion.

Well, I hope to hear from you soon. I do, however, hope that you can regain your capability to be civil...because these ad hominem's you've been throwing out recently are really killing the respect I've held for you...anyhow, until then!