The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

[Tart]

This is a big question of our times... Was Jesus a myth? Is it reasonable to believe Jesus never even existed?

You see how often people throw around cliche phrases like "the Bible is proof of Jesus, and comic books are proof of spider man", or "there is the same amount of proof of Jesus as there is for King Arthur."

It seems like a lot of us question if Jesus ever even existed.. This is such an important aspect of Christianity, because if Jesus never even existed, than Jesus was never Resurrected and Christianity is false testimony about God, and even the first disciples confessed that.

There can be a lot said on this subject, but I think all the evidence points to one thing, a historical Jesus... And when I say "all the evidence" I mean it...

Many people point non-biblical sources as to give evidence of a historical Jesus, and certainly there are many of them. But even more so, its not JUST these sources that point to a historical Jesus, it is ALL the sources point to a historical Jesus. There is NO source whatsoever, from any time period from the first century AD, when Jesus existed, all the way up to the 18th century, that will tell us Jesus never existed. The earliest sources we have that question if Jesus was a myth are just a few hundred years old.

"The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France" (Wikipedia "Christ myth Theory")

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"
Bart Ehrman (agnostic Biblical scholar).

Scholars literally turned this idea upside-down and called the "mythical Jesus" a "modern myth". They are saying that if you believe Jesus is a myth, you believe a myth...

So what is the evidence Jesus existed?

I think the best evidence is the Bible itself, and its reliability. Take the biggest critics of a historical Jesus, like Dr. Carrier for example, and we have them confessing certain truths about Christianity. Like the existence of Paul, I have never seen anyone argue that Paul never existed, because we know he existed and we know he wrote the majority of the New Testament. For example we have archaeological evidence of Paul on trial, backing up exactly what is talked about in the Book of Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

No one thinks Paul never existed, not even biggest scholars that argue Jesus never existed, we all agree Paul existed. We also know that Paul knew the Disciples, I have never heard anyone say otherwise. Paul knew Peter, eyewitness and disciple of Jesus. Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus. Paul knew John. Likewise the first disciples are depicted in the book of Acts, and also the Gospels. We have Pauline epistles name dropping, and we have the letters written by Peter, James, and John. So we know that the first disciples were real. The evidence shows us that the people who walked with, talked with, and knew Jesus first hand actually existed. I have never seen anyone give a reasonable case against it, and I see no reason to believe these people didnt exist.

And these people knew others, like Saint Stephen, and Thomas the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Philip the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Luke, etc... These people knew, first hand, the disciples... This is the history of Christianity... And likewise it just continued to spread, to people like Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Saint Pothinus, etc... We have the records from the earliest disciples all the way down to the first churches, and beyond. And even the biggest critics of Christianity, and a historical Jesus, has to admit that (at least some) of these people are historical... And there is no reason to believe that any of these people didnt exist...

Jesus was surrounded by historical people.

Even going backwards from Jesus we have historical people... As mentioned in the Gospels, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, etc... In fact, people use to say the same about Pontius Pilate, that he never existed. That didnt last long, as we have found archaeological evidence of him. These people are historical, and even the BIGGEST critics have to admit it. Not to mention, all this was going on when the Jews were smack dab in the middle of written records.

I mean, I have never heard of anyone claime the Old Testament isnt historical, with respect to the nation of Israel. The Old Testament is the written records of the Israelite's. We have archaeological evidence of this kingdom, we even have evidence of Israelite's in Egypt all the way back to 1400BC. Backing up the very first book of the Bible, Genesis. We have verses in Genesis that mention real places, and real people, like the Pharaohs of Egypt for example. We have archaeological evidence of the twelve tribe of Israel going to the land Israel. We have evidence of their wars, the government, their laws, their kings, and their genealogy. It is clear that Israel kept some of the most detailed historical records in all of humanity, personally think if you want to study humanity itself, the best place to go is the Bible. Which isnt surprising because knowledge is said to begin with God. These are the best records of where our laws came from, where our history came from, and the likes.

So all the while, Jesus appears right smack in the middle of historical written record, and was surrounded by real people and places, and we dont have any early sources challenging the existence of Jesus.

It starts historical with the kingdom of Israelite's and there written record, included in the Old Testament, it continues on to the New Testament with people like King Herod, and the genealogy of King David, all the way down to Joseph and Mary. And places like Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Samaria, etc... The story continues with historical people like Nicodemus, and Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, etc.. And places like Corinth, Rome, Galilee, the Jordan River, etc... The disciples, like Peter, James, John, Simon, etc... And Jesus dies a historical death (according to every source we have), and is resurrected.. And the history continues on, to people like Paul, Saint Stephen, Aeneas, Luke, Jude, Mark, etc. And the Christian Church comes into existence.

Everything we know about this is historical, and the biggest critics of a historical Jesus have to admit it...

So given ALL this historical evidence, the people places and events around Jesus Christ, can anyone give an example of anyone of history (or mythology/fiction) who was surrounded by this magnitude of historical evidence who was in fact a myth, or fictional?

And if you believe Jesus never existed, can you give us any reasoning or evidence that led you to believe that? How can you reasonably believe Jesus never existed?

[Willum]

Sorry, I misunderstood...

This is a big question of our times... Was Jesus a myth? Is it reasonable to believe Jesus never even existed?

The most reasonable assumption to begin with. Start with nothing and build up.

You see how often people throw around cliche phrases like "the Bible is proof of Jesus, and comic books are proof of spider man", or "there is the same amount of proof of Jesus as there is for King Arthur."

Yep, a very great deal of wisdom in that.

It seems like a lot of us question if Jesus ever even existed...

There can be a lot said on this subject, but I think all the evidence points to one thing, a historical Jesus... And when I say "all the evidence" I mean it...

Many people point non-biblical sources as to give evidence of a historical Jesus, and certainly there are many of them.

There don't seem to be any non-corrupted sources.

So what is the evidence Jesus existed?

I think the best evidence is the Bible itself, and its reliability...

Nope, that would be the comic book. Can't cite the comic book about the comic book.

No one thinks Paul never existed, not even biggest scholars that argue Jesus never existed, we all agree Paul existed.

No, only Christians don't question this, I see no evidence for any of the Apostles.

And these people knew others, like Saint Stephen, and Thomas the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Philip the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Luke, etc... These people knew, first hand, the disciples...

I am going to need some references and dates.

Jesus was surrounded by historical people.

Even going backwards from Jesus we have historical people... As mentioned in the Gospels, King Herod,

Who killed every baby of a certain age... except it never happened.

Pontius Pilate,

who also can't be shown to exist.

John the Baptist,

who if he existed, was not a church approved source, his opinion means nothing, except to believers.

I mean, I have never heard of anyone claim the Old Testament inst historical

Except educated folks, or historians.

, with respect to the nation of Israel. The Old Testament is the written records of the Israelite's. We have archaeological evidence of this kingdom, we even have evidence of Israelite's in Egypt all the way back to 1400BC. Backing up the very first book of the Bible, Genesis.

Perhaps you do, but the rest of us read history from history texts. The days are long gone when the Bible was considered a valid history, indeed the only, history text.

We have verses in Genesis that mention real places, and real people, like the Pharaohs of Egypt for example. We have archaeological evidence of the twelve tribe of Israel going to the land Israel.

Yeah, you need to update your history. Spider-man has references to JFK, and stuff as well, but in particulars the OT fails.

So, no, you can't use the Bible.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 20 by Tart]

Tart, your arguments are irrational and non-sequitur.

You are arguing that if you can show any evidence at all that a historical Jesus existed, then this would somehow give some sort of credence or support to the mythological Jesus of the Gospel rumors.

That is a grossly irrational conclusion that is not the least bit logical.

I have given a prime example using Elvis Presley, which you have falsely labeled as a false equivalency. But you haven't shown it to be false at all. So your claim that it is a false equivalency is without merit.

I also gave an even greater example of how mythological Santa Claus came into being from fodder that originated by an actual person called Saint Nicholas. It's true that in the case of Santa Claus the mythological nature of Santa Claus is obvious. Even though we can trace the origins back to a real historical person no one thinks that the mythological Santa Claus really is the original Saint Nicolas.

I suggest that in the case of the mythological Gospel Jesus this should also be just as crystal clear. After all, the mythological Jesus made promises that have never been kept, nor is it even remotely reasonable to think they they could be kept.

The mythological Jesus that became known as "Christ, the Son of God" is every bit as absurd as the mythological Saint Nicholas that become known as "Santa Claus".

To claim that this is a false equivalency is absurd. The Christ of the Gospels is every bit as absurd as Santa Claus.

So your arguments that these are false equivalencies fails. Clearly you are simply doing everything within your power to refuse to acknowledge the truth. The Christ of the Gospels is every bit as absurd as Santa Claus. And both of these mythological characters were most likely the result of rumors that arose from persons who actually existed.

Therefore, even if you could show for absolute certain that some person named Jesus had lived and did all of the mundane natural things claimed about him in the gospel rumors, this still wouldn't loan any credence or support for the outrageous supernatural claims made about the mythological Jesus in the Gospels rumors.

For you to do anything short of acknowledging the truth of everything I've said in this post will only reveal that you either aren't interested in truth, or that you are incapable of recognizing it.

If you want to make an argument for the credibility of the Gospel rumors of Jesus, you are going to need to do far more than simply argue that there may have existed an actual person who served as the fodder for these obviously outrageous supernatural tales. That argument alone is utterly meaningless. Yet, thus far you are attempting to dismiss my points out-of-hand.

Sorry, but that isn't going to fly.

The existence of an actual person who may have served as fodder for the mythological Gospel Jesus does nothing to support or loan any credence to those mythological claims.

If you think it does, then you have jumped to extremely irrational and non-sequitur conclusions yourself.

[Overcomer]

Willum wrote:

We find Jesus tells us to pay Caesar's tax (Caesar being a pagan god,) and obey Rome. Queer commandments for a Palestinian religious figure and alleged king of the Jews.

I can explain that. The Pharisees were always trying to lay traps for Jesus. They were upset about people following him in droves. In this case, the trap centres on the question of paying taxes to the Roman government. If Jesus says the Jews have to pay taxes to Rome, he will displease his Jewish followers. If he says the Jews shouldn't have to pay taxes to Rome, he could be arrested for sedition. It looks like a lose-lose situation for Jesus.

But Jesus is too clever for them. He asks whose likeness is on the denarius. The answer is Caesar. Jesus says, "Give Caesar what is Caesar's. Give God what is God's."

With this answer, he avoids the trap and indicates several things:

1. The Jews live in the Roman Empire. They work there. They benefit from Roman laws and protection. They are even allowed to practice their religion freely. It is not wrong to pay taxes to those in authority whether we like it or not.

2. Jesus was not a political saviour. He was a spiritual one. He came to bring freedom, not from Rome, but from greater things, namely, sin and death.

3. The Roman coins bore the imprint of Caesar so it was right to give him back what was his. Human beings bear the imprint of God, our Creator. Therefore, it is right that we give God what is his, namely, ourselves.

Anyone interested in reading a detailed article on this episode can do so here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/62-god-and ... ke-2019-26

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

There is NO source whatsoever, from any time period from the first century AD, when Jesus existed, all the way up to the 18th century, that will tell us Jesus never existed.

Tart, why do you expect this if it were the case that Jesus never existed?
For example, take a hypothetical future, a thousand years from now. Let's say between now and then, civilisation has gone through wars and maybe an almost total social collapse a couple of times.
In that future, historians and archaeologists find copies of J K Rowlings Harry Potter books. They read them and learn about some characters called Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort and Professor Dumbledore, among others.
Should they take it as the case that these were real people, who lived real lives, because they don't and will not find sources saying these people are fake?

Many people point non-biblical sources as to give evidence of a historical Jesus

Okay, can you list these non-biblical sources? Note that to make your case as strong as possible, it would behoove you to cite sources as close to, or at the time of Jesus's own lifetime. Someone writing three centuries after Jesus's supposed lifetime would not count in my own varied opinion. That person could be mistaken, for all I know.

The earliest sources we have that question if Jesus was a myth are just a few hundred years old.

Let's suppose for a moment, you and I, that a historical Jesus (note that I am suspending any question about divinity) is real, was real I should say. Who would, at the time of his death (circa 30 AD), have questioned his existence? Who would have bothered?
I am asking you to make a prediction using your own understanding of human nature and psychology. Jesus, during his own lifetime, was evidently not a person of much renown or notice. He may have attracted small crowds (say a few hundred?) in cities whose populations numbered in the tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands. I can say that previous line with some confidence given how little documentation there is from his lifetime that mentions him (if there even is any).
It's only after his supposed lifetime and death, that Jesus becomes influential. Given that situation, I find it perfectly understandable that no-one actually asked if Jesus even existed. How would they have been able to find out? The science of history was in its infancy, as was journalism.
From what I see of the situation, no-one would have cared or bothered to ask the question.

"The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France" (Wikipedia "Christ myth Theory")

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"
Bart Ehrman (agnostic Biblical scholar).

I'm not going to disagree with these quotations. What I am going to say is I am not surprised that the idea of a mythical Jesus is modern. I am not surprised that no-one asked the question 2,000 years ago, and I am not surprised that during Christianity's first rise to political and social power (some centuries after Jesus) that no-one bothered, since they would have understood on at least some level that it would be impossible to prove he didn't, and also dangerous to even try. Just imagine going into say Saudi Arabia and saying that you want to investigate to see if the Prophet Muhammed even existed.

I invite you to ask what were conditions in late 18th century France, such that there then arose a formal denial of the existence of Jesus?
Late 18th century of course refers to the end of the 1700s and what is the single most pivotal event in Continental Europe during that time frame?
Surely I don't need to explain what the French Revolution was all about? In a nutshell, the oppressed and overtaxed lower classes of French society rose up against the powerful ruling elites, the nobles, monarchy and...let's not forget, the clergy, mainly Roman Catholic.
So again...I am not surprised that the denial of Jesus arose then and there. To address the power imbalance, questions would have been asked, answers furiously demanded, and certain people would have become skeptical of any and all justifications provided by the clergy for their position in society.
Up to and including questioning whether or not Jesus Christ, the central figure of the religion, ever existed at all.
In fact, it strongly seems to me that you found this quote about the denial of Jesus's existence, found it came from some scholarly authority, and then didn't think about it. You didn't question why it is that the denial came from that time period. You just took it and moved on.

I think the best evidence is the Bible itself, and its reliability.

Since the Bible is presented as one volume, I can only take it as one piece of evidence.

For example we have archaeological evidence of Paul on trial, backing up exactly what is talked about in the Book of Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

As I fully expected to happen, and this is not the first time this has been done on this site, a piece of evidence proferred by someone does not actually say what they claim it says.

The reconstructed inscription begins thus:

Tiber[ius Claudius Cae]sar Augustus Ge[rmanicus, invested with tribunician po]wer [for the 12th time, acclaimed Imperator for t]he 26th time, F[ather of the Fa]ther[land...]. For a l[ong time have I been not onl]y [well-disposed towards t]he ci[ty] of Delph[i, but also solicitous for its pro]sperity, and I have always guard[ed th]e cul[t of t]he [Pythian] Apol[lo. But] now [since] it is said to be desti[tu]te of [citi]zens, as [L. Jun]ius Gallio, my fri[end] an[d procon]sul, [recently reported to me, and being desirous that Delphi] should retain [inta]ct its for[mer rank, I] ord[er you (pl.) to in]vite well-born people also from [ot]her cities [to Delphi as new inhabitants....][4]

At best, that just mentions and corroborates the existence of the proconsul Gallio.
It does not corroborate the claim that Paul was on trial.
You have read into the evidence what it does not say. All the evidence you proferred says is that there was a proconsul called Gallio.
Acts says there was a proconsul called Gallio, and not only that, but that he dismissed the charges against Paul. The Delphi inscription that you linked to does not say that second part.

and we have the letters written by Peter, James, and John.

I thought that the authorship of those letters is currently contested among scholars? Last I checked, Paul is the only person to have a more or less indisputable claim on the authorship of a Biblical work. Unless someone could care to correct me?

I mean, I have never heard of anyone claime the Old Testament isnt historical

Clearly, you're new to this site. Questions have certainly been asked about the OT on a historical basis. Noone to my knowledge, least of all myself, says that the entire thing is un-historical, but portions? Yes. Things like the Hebrews being slaves (to the tune of a population of millions) in Egypt and escaping, wandering the desert for 40 years, the wiping out of the Canaanites, Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve...things like that we can be virtually certain are mythology.

The Old Testament is the written records of the Israelite's.

Does this mean the Israelites wouldn't at some point make things up? Note that making things up doesn't have to require an intent to deceive.

We have archaeological evidence of this kingdom, we even have evidence of Israelite's in Egypt all the way back to 1400BC.

What does this evidence say? I have to ask you this question given that your earlier citation of a piece of evidence did not actually say what you claimed it did.

Backing up the very first book of the Bible, Genesis.

All of it? Every story? Every page, every line?
You've got to start getting more precise.

We have verses in Genesis that mention real places, and real people, like the Pharaohs of Egypt for example.

We have stories in Marvel comics mentioning New York City, and I wouldn't be surprised (I don't actually know since I'm not a reader of comics) if they at some point referenced real people.
Does Genesis mentioning that there were people who were kings of Egypt, titled Pharaohs, mean that any and all stories mentioning them are to be considered true?

We have archaeological evidence of the twelve tribe of Israel going to the land Israel.

Such as...?

We have evidence of their wars, the government, their laws, their kings, and their genealogy.

I question how rigorous genealogical records were from back in the day. Given that there was practically no science, nothing like DNA and genetics, how vulnerable would said records have been to tampering, to people claiming to be descended from whoever they said?

It is clear that Israel kept some of the most detailed historical records in all of humanity,

All of humanity? What...better than the modern day?

personally think if you want to study humanity itself, the best place to go is the Bible.

No thank you. I might want to start with studying humans. Not the written word. Not to say the written word isn't important, just that if I wanted to study literature, I'd study literature. If I wanted to study humans, I'd study humans.

Which isnt surprising because knowledge is said to begin with God.

Just because someone says this, doesn't make it true. Whatever the heck does it even mean? It's just a conglomeration of words strung together, I can't parse it.

These are the best records of where our laws came from, where our history came from, and the likes.

Whose laws? Whose history? Are you even aware that societies and civilisations that were not Abrahamic existed before the Israelites? That had nothing at all to do with them?

So all the while, Jesus appears right smack in the middle of historical written record, and was surrounded by real people and places, and we dont have any early sources challenging the existence of Jesus.

Why do you expect there to have been sources challenging his existence from an early date? I honestly can't think of a single person who ever thought so, or expected it.
I don't.

And Jesus dies a historical death (according to every source we have), and is resurrected

I like how you threw in his resurrection in there, as if it doesn't even need to be questioned or debated.
I now have to ask you
What did you mean when you started this topic and talking about the historicity of Jesus?
What is a historical Jesus?

can anyone give an example of anyone of history (or mythology/fiction) who was surrounded by this magnitude of historical evidence who was in fact a myth, or fictional?

This is a badly worded question. You asked if there is anyone of history OR mythological/fiction, who was surrounded by a ton of historical evidence who was in fact myth/fictional.
A person is either/or. Not both at the same time.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by Tart]

While Jesus divinity is certainly important to Christianity and stands on its own evidence, this discussion is about the mythical Jesus...

Why then mention the resurrection in your opening post? It's in there, almost hidden, in your fourth to last paragraph, in a list of things that are considered historical, as if its just one more in that list of historical things.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by Tart]

So, how do you make sense out of Paul, Peter, James, John... The authors of the New Testament? The beginning of the first churches? The killing and the persecution of the first believes, by the authorities of Rome?

Is this you presuming that Roman authorities are one in thought, mind and intent?
Jesus's ministry and death would have occurred during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. The persecutions would more than likely have occurred during the reign of Emperor Caligula, if not Claudius and/or Nero.
Also, a conspiracy to insert a Jesus into the Jewish consciousness does not necessarily mean that the local Roman authorities were knowledgeable about the plan, or agreed with it if they were.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

Amazingly, there is more evidence about Jesus' existence than about Trajan's Parthian campaign.

Much like what Tart did in his OP, you too mischaracterize the very sources you link to. In the Wikipedia link you gave, just by scrolling up, I found photos and mentions of coins mentioning Trajan found in the very regions that his campaign was in.
A question that you and Tart do not ask is what kinds of evidence? If someone actually speculated that Trajan's Parthian campaign never happened, he would have to explain away anything that would indicate that there was a campaign, and not just documents. Coins, inscriptions, battle monuments

What is your source for that claim? I can't find any credible source to back it up.

This is why I remain non-committal with what Willum says. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Greek, Latin or Hebrew languages. I can neither prove or disprove what he says regarding Hail Zeus. I will admit though that I always found it odd that he talks about Hail Zeus, since Hail is an English word...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by Mithrae]

Since you need to distract from the proof, arguments against word games, you obviously have nothing.
We've been through all this before, and you haven't learned. If Tart wishes me to go through it for him, so be it.

Word games definitely prove word games.
Disproving word games, still leaves you without Jesus, and that's all you got.

Willum...I'm going to have to call you to task here. You replied to Mithrae's post 12, and imply (if not outright say) he has nothing.
He clearly does. His post 12 contains what looks to me to be a strong argument against yours. He links to sources and even recordings of pronunciations from what look to be reputable sources

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

So given ALL this historical evidence, the people places and events around Jesus Christ, can anyone give an example of anyone of history (or mythology/fiction) who was surrounded by this magnitude of historical evidence who was in fact a myth, or fictional?

Given the criteria you provided in your OP, may I suggest James Bond.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by rikuoamero]

For you brother riku, anything.

Mithing persons said:

"Hey" is a modern English word which does not derive from Latin or Greek Rolling Eyes The distinct letter J

This is just not thought out.

Saying "Hey" didn't exist because of English, is plainly false, hey, is more sound than word, but, hey, ay, ie, io (yo) ad infinitum, and indeed more formal 'heils" and so on are mean the same things, "Hey Riku..." means "pay attention to me, Riku."

No, it is undenialbly true that Iesus is a homophone (in other words it sounds exactly like) Ie Zeus, and if you spoke Greek or Roman, this is what you would hear,

His "J" argument is specious. If you see any matter to it, I'll need it explained to me, for indeed the sound existed, and Latin and Greek had no spelling rules. You could spell Jesus, Iosus, Iesus, Iozus, etc., ad imaginarium, but such is also true of Joshua. Syllables and consonants are far mor important than vowels, and consonants often form sounds by relations.
So the derivation of Jesus from Joshua is a deceptive apologetic argument.

His attempt to demonstrate by comparison in French, is absolutely ridiculous. The French do not pronounce the last letter of a word. This is a tradition that has transformed Jesus name by convention. If Jesus were followed by another word beginning with a vowel it would be Jesus'.
But I am being too kind, the analogy is specious and desperate.

He seems to think my understanding of Greek and Latin is an opinion. My knowledge isn't extensive, but it is no opinion.

He then repeats his error about sounds being contextual as much as they are independent, the example being, s can make a sh sound, if you don't have an sh in your alphabet.

Josua = Joshua, if that is the only way you have to spell it. English, of course has many examples of this, as do all languages.

His reference to how to pronounce Jesus in Greece is fine, but mithing link didn't bother to show that how you pronounce Joshua in Greek, is Joshua, or Eeyos(h)ua,. Deceptive and ingenuous if you ask me.

"Golden people," are practically an identity. When Christian over-wrote it, they over-wrote the word "golden." So Tacitus, was not referring to Christians, but them, Golden people. Why do you think it is called the Golden Rule, and not the Christian rule?

To repet a theme:
All that can be done is to try to attack the word games. Succeed or fail, they can not present any proof.

I show that Jesus and Deus are word games, they deny it, but can't provide anything but denial OF the words games to prove they exist. It hasn't seemed to dawn yet that denying word games isn't proof.

Feel free to criticize, and raise objections, I'll answer as best I can.