A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

[Jagella]

Some of you may be familiar with the argument from silence advanced by many mythicists in which it is claimed that the historians of the early first century never mentioned Jesus. If he really lived, then how could they have missed him? One person in particular who might be expected to have mentioned Jesus is Philo of Alexandria. Richard Carrier writes:

Philo made pilgrimages to Jerusalem and knew about Palestinian affairs and wrote about the Herods and Pontius Pilate. And Christians must have begun evangelizing the Jewish community in Alexandria almost immediately: it was the single largest population center, with a large and diverse Jewish Community, almost directly adjacent to Judea, along a well-established trade route well traveled by Jewish pilgrims. So it's not as if Philo would not have heard of their claims even if he had never left Egypt; and yet we know he did, having traveled to Judea and Rome. Moreover, Philo just happens to be one Jew of the period whose work Christians bothered to preserve. He would not have been alone. (1)

To counter this argument, historicists have come up with an ad hoc explanation: Jesus was a small-time preacher who would not have been noticed by historians like Philo. Although this argument might seem superficially convincing, it argues against another historicist claim: Jesus inspired the New Testament writers to make a god out of him decades after he died.

So will the real Jesus please stand up? Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived, or was he such a powerful, big-time figure that many years after his death he was deified?

(1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 294

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

The majorist conflict I can see here, is the inability of the folks claimin' Jesus has him some historicity, only don't it poke a stick in a bag, they can't even show he existed.

Alas, "Well it says it there" seems a compelling argument to so many.



Conclusions?

"Imma let y'all finish, but Imma hopin' me here that some or more'n some of y'all'll play along here, and not ask me to present evidence of pretty ol' Jesus there existin', but hope me that at least one or a bunch of y'all'll carry on conversation as I done proved me that he did.



We can't possibly know the mind of a critter we can't show that there he sits, he has 'im him one of 'em.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ahhhhh.
So to avoid addressing the question of dead bodies being resurrected and roaming the streets, he is asking about the number 500 instead.

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Whether it was 'many' or 500, it would be worthy of note that dead people got out of their graves and made themselves known, yet it seems to have gone unnoticed. Like the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus.

I have my own theories about why the "mass" resurrection thing in Matthew 27 wasn't "wrote" down. Either way, even if it was wrote down, I doubt any of you would be any closer to becoming Christians, so the point is moot.

Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known. It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis. It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitiuos times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim. Afterall, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.

Was Elvis' grave empty? Was an empty grave/casket ever part of the tale? Doubt it. So next time you see him, tell Elvis to step his "resurrection" game up.

That's how you separate the men from the boys.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 2 by Wootah]

This begs the question though doesn't it? What about his death made him famous? Why was he executed?

If he was executed as a political/religious revolutionary he would have had to have had enough notoriety/fame in the region to be a big enough threat worthy of execution in such a public manner. Hence the proposition is contradictory.

If he wasn't famous during his life he wouldn't have gained enough attention to be worthy of execution. If he was executed for his religious/political beliefs it was because he was famous.

RESPONSE: Jesus was executed along with two other insurrectionists. Jesus was claimed to be the "Messiah" who was the king of the Jews who would restore the rule to Israel.

But of course, it never happened. It was just a story.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 202 by For_The_Kingdom]

Was Elvis' grave empty? Was an empty grave/casket ever part of the tale? Doubt it. So next time you see him, tell Elvis to step his "resurrection" game up.

That's how you separate the men from the boys.

Hallelujah! There are many empty graves in history. I guess the Cheops was resurrected! There are literally thousands of mysteriously empty tombs, that's thousands of resurrections. That over-counts those mysterious five hundred.

With all the empty tombs, this means there are many resurrections, and thus, plenty of miraculous event for us all to believe!

But every empty tomb is an example of a resurrection, right?

[Clownboat]

I have my own theories about why the "mass" resurrection thing in Matthew 27 wasn't "wrote" down. Either way, even if it was wrote down, I doubt any of you would be any closer to becoming Christians, so the point is moot.

What a cop out!

Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known. It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis. It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitiuos times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim. Afterall, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.

Was Elvis' grave empty?

Apples to bowling shoes. You see, Elvis was layed to rest in his own grave, Jesus in another mans. Also note that Jesus had 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes placed on him and then the disciples set off for Gallilee, a logical burial place for Jesus. Seems resonable to me that they took the body with them. Therefore, having Joseph of Arimathea's grave empty would be expected, not a surprise.

Do you not find such a thing to be resonable? If not, why?

Was an empty grave/casket ever part of the tale? Doubt it. So next time you see him, tell Elvis to step his "resurrection" game up.

That's how you separate the men from the boys.

Not sure why you posted all this, so if it is important for some reason, please let me know so I can try to address it. If not, please respond to my thoughts.

(Or just ignore them and claim I probably wouldn't become a Christian again anyways)

[For_The_Kingdom]

I have my own theories about why the "mass" resurrection thing in Matthew 27 wasn't "wrote" down. Either way, even if it was wrote down, I doubt any of you would be any closer to becoming Christians, so the point is moot.

What a cop out!

Cop out? This is no cop out...the point is; even if 5 different sources outside of the Bible testified to this mass resurrection, would you be any closer to becoming a Christian? I sincerely doubt it.

So it isn't about what was written/not written. It is about the systematic rejection of Christianity, no matter how much evidence is provided.

Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known.

Imagine the impact that would happen if Jesus' got out of his tomb and made himself known.

I imagine the impact would be the beginning of the world's largest religion in terms of followers.

It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis.

"No more seriously"...it is the world's largest religion with over a billion followers...yet, it was taken "no more seriously.."

SMH.

It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitiuos times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim.

Genetic fallacy.

Afterall, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.

Archaic religious deities that didn't really outlive the people that once believed in it.

Apples to bowling shoes. You see, Elvis was layed to rest in his own grave, Jesus in another mans.

Irrelevant.

Also note that Jesus had 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes placed on him and then the disciples set off for Gallilee, a logical burial place for Jesus. Seems resonable to me that they took the body with them. Therefore, having Joseph of Arimathea's grave empty would be expected, not a surprise.

Hmm..you sound an awful like TiredoftheNonsense. Hmmm.

Do you not find such a thing to be resonable? If not, why?

I find it reasonable that you and TOTN are the same poster. I could be wrong. But typing styles/point of views are like fingerprints..DNA.

In other words; identifiers.

Not sure why you posted all this, so if it is important for some reason, please let me know so I can try to address it. If not, please respond to my thoughts.

Yeah, nagging me to respond to what you think is a knock-out argument against the validity of the Resurrection...yeah...TiredoftheNonsense. Too much of a coincidence.

SMH.

(Or just ignore them and claim I probably wouldn't become a Christian again anyways)

It is what it is.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 206 by For_The_Kingdom]

I find it reasonable that you and TOTN are the same poster. I could be wrong. But typing styles/point of views are like fingerprints..DNA.

Do you have a motivation for this supposed single person behind the user accounts Clownboat and TiredoftheNonsense? CB's account was formed in 2008, TotN's in 2009. That means that for your theory to be true, one person would have had to have been on this site for literally ten years, and posted over 11,000 comments between the two accounts, and has never been caught by the mods.

[Clownboat]

Cop out? This is no cop out...the point is; even if 5 different sources outside of the Bible testified to this mass resurrection, would you be any closer to becoming a Christian? I sincerely doubt it.

So it isn't about what was written/not written. It is about the systematic rejection of Christianity, no matter how much evidence is provided.

Just listen to yourself.
Basically you are saying that even if you had a good argument, you wouldn't present it because you don't think I would become any closer to becoming a Christian again. That is a cop out. It's as if you don't care about what the readers of these threads think. Note, I do not post thinking that I might change your mind. Really, I don't. I sincerely believe that your religion fills a need that you have that I personally don't. I post to learn for myself and for the readers of these posts.

Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known.

Imagine the impact that would happen if Jesus' got out of his tomb and made himself known.

I imagine the impact would be the beginning of the world's largest religion in terms of followers.

Hundreds of years later? Obviously a resurrected person is not what got this religion off the ground.

Here is your scenario:
Person A: "Oh look! Elvis got out of his grave is alive again!"
Person B: "I can't wait to see what kind of impact this will have on the world hundreds of years from now".

Then there is also the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses were not thought up until 1870. That's darn near 2,000 years after the claimed resurrection, so clearly this religion is expanding into more and more denominations, but not due to a dead body being back to life.

It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis.

"No more seriously"...it is the world's largest religion with over a billion followers...yet, it was taken "no more seriously.."

SMH.

What point are you failing to make here?
Please clarify what the billions of Muslim followers mean about the truth of Allah? Perhaps that will help me understand this argument from population.

It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitious times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim.

Genetic fallacy.

Not so fast...
Do you actually disagree with the statement that people 2,000 years ago were more accustomed to superstitious claims like demi-gods and such?
To me, it seems like you are just trying to dodge a fact that is uncomfortable for you.

After all, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.

Archaic religious deities that didn't really outlive the people that once believed in it.

Your statement fails to address the point that demi-gods and gods being claimed to resurrect were much more normal back in the day when Jesus's followers started to claim that he also resurrected.

Apples to bowling shoes. You see, Elvis was laid to rest in his own grave, Jesus in another mans.

Irrelevant.

False.
There would be no reason to move Elvis from Elvis's grave.
There would be a reason to move Jesus from Joseph's grave.
This is very relevant, but I understand why it is uncomfortable for you and why you would prefer to not address it. Your silence speaks to the readers I trust.

Also note that Jesus had 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes placed on him and then the disciples set off for Galilee, a logical burial place for Jesus. Seems reasonable to me that they took the body with them. Therefore, having Joseph of Arimathea's grave empty would be expected, not a surprise.

Hmm..you sound an awful like TiredoftheNonsense. Hmmm.

Well... I am not. Sorry.
Notice readers how when a point is made, rather than addressing it, there are cop outs and dodges. Why no rebuttal... I think we know.

Do you not find such a thing to be reasonable? If not, why?

I find it reasonable that you and TOTN are the same poster. I could be wrong. But typing styles/point of views are like fingerprints..DNA.

In other words; identifiers.

Is there anything you have been correct about in this entire post of yours?
Readers, notice that when asked if he thinks moving Jesus from a tomb that was not his to a more natural burial place for Jesus, like Galilee to be reasonable or not, once again we get a dodge. Why address a difficult point when you can deflect?

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you find these responses to be adequate or not. I can surely say I have learned nothing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Just listen to yourself.
Basically you are saying that even if you had a good argument, you wouldn't present it because you don't think I would become any closer to becoming a Christian again.

No...I didn't get the "they won't believe regardless of the evidence" impression until after 2+ years of making assessments based on what I see.

That is a cop out. It's as if you don't care about what the readers of these threads think.

I care about saving souls. It is my job/duty. People don't realize that they/we have so much to live for...and not in this life, either.

Note, I do not post thinking that I might change your mind. Really, I don't. I sincerely believe that your religion fills a need that you have that I personally don't. I post to learn for myself and for the readers of these posts.

Thanks for that unsolicited information on what you post for.

Hundreds of years later? Obviously a resurrected person is not what got this religion off the ground.

A Resurrection is what got the religion off the ground.

Here is your scenario:
Person A: "Oh look! Elvis got out of his grave is alive again!"
Person B: "I can't wait to see what kind of impact this will have on the world hundreds of years from now".

The impact of Christianity was felt immediately after the cross.

Then there is also the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses were not thought up until 1870. That's darn near 2,000 years after the claimed resurrection, so clearly this religion is expanding into more and more denominations, but not due to a dead body being back to life.

It is apparent that you purposely picked one of the relatively newer branches of Christianity in order to make this irrelevant moot point of yours.

Jehovah's Witnesses are arguably (and I do mean "arguably") a branch of Christianity. Just because one branch of Christianity began to grow 2,000 years after the Resurrection says nothing about the tree in general (Christianity), and when the tree (Christianity) began to grow.

What point are you failing to make here?
Please clarify what the billions of Muslim followers mean about the truth of Allah? Perhaps that will help me understand this argument from population.

It would be argument from population if and only if my reasoning was "Christianity is true because it is the world's largest religion". But did I ever say or imply that? No, I didn't.

I only brought up Christianity's population because you said that the religion "was not taken seriously"....and my point is how you say it wasn't/isn't taken seriously when it became the world's largest religion and has been that way for quite some time now.

That is like saying Michael Jacksons "Thriller" album wasn't taken seriously, when it is the best selling album of all time.

Just makes no sense.

Not so fast...
Do you actually disagree with the statement that people 2,000 years ago were more accustomed to superstitious claims like demi-gods and such?

But it is irrelevant. How the people CAME TO BELIEVE in their religion has no barren on whether or not the religion is true or false.

In the same way that it doesn't matter how many people believe in the religion, that has no barren on whether or not the religion is true or false (argument from population).

So, in this hyper-active tangent you are on right now, you are clearly using fallacious reasoning.

To me, it seems like you are just trying to dodge a fact that is uncomfortable for you.

Never that.

Your statement fails to address the point that demi-gods and gods being claimed to resurrect were much more normal back in the day when Jesus's followers started to claim that he also resurrected.

It wasn't in the Jewish community.

False.
There would be no reason to move Elvis from Elvis's grave.
There would be a reason to move Jesus from Joseph's grave.
This is very relevant, but I understand why it is uncomfortable for you and why you would prefer to not address it. Your silence speaks to the readers I trust.

Also note that Jesus had 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes placed on him and then the disciples set off for Galilee, a logical burial place for Jesus. Seems reasonable to me that they took the body with them. Therefore, having Joseph of Arimathea's grave empty would be expected, not a surprise.

Hmm..you sound an awful like TiredoftheNonsense. Hmmm.

Well... I am not. Sorry.
Notice readers how when a point is made, rather than addressing it, there are cop outs and dodges. Why no rebuttal... I think we know.

Do you not find such a thing to be reasonable? If not, why?

I find it reasonable that you and TOTN are the same poster. I could be wrong. But typing styles/point of views are like fingerprints..DNA.

In other words; identifiers.

Is there anything you have been correct about in this entire post of yours?
Readers, notice that when asked if he thinks moving Jesus from a tomb that was not his to a more natural burial place for Jesus, like Galilee to be reasonable or not, once again we get a dodge. Why address a difficult point when you can deflect?

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you find these responses to be adequate or not. I can surely say I have learned nothing.

Readers, please decide for yourselves whether or not Clownboat and TiredoftheNonsense are the same poster. Look at my debate with TOTN on the resurrection, and also this short discussion on this thread.

I can make a case that they are the same person. I won't on this thread, though. PM me and I will make the case.

[benchwarmer]

Readers, please decide for yourselves whether or not Clownboat and TiredoftheNonsense are the same poster. Look at my debate with TOTN on the resurrection, and also this short discussion on this thread.

Even if it were true (which I seriously doubt), how does this help your case in any way, shape or form? The first sign of a lost debate is focusing on your debate opponent rather than on the points they make.

If by some odd chance you are right, you should only have to do half the work, while your opponent(s) have to do twice the work. Should be easy for you to make your case no?

Anyway, back to the topic somewhat:

You claimed:

I care about saving souls. It is my job/duty. People don't realize that they/we have so much to live for...and not in this life, either.

Why is it your job to save souls? I thought God did that based on the actions of this Jesus character we are discussing the historicity of in this thread.

Are you suggesting that God and Jesus can't save souls on their own? Are you suggesting that if someone who feels it their job to save souls decides to be lazy one day they can foil the plans of God and not get all the souls saved that needed saving?

I would really like to see a scripture quote that backs up your necessity to be 'saving souls'. I thought Jesus did all the work.