How much evidence do you have for the existence of Socrates?
There were writers and scholars contemporaneous to Socrates, people like Plato and Xenophon who confirmed his existence as eyewitness sources. The difference with ''Jesus'' is that nobody wrote ANYTHING about him till nearly a century AFTER he supposedly lived. Some estimates put the earliest gospels at around 70 AD.
Excerpts:
Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
by Kenneth Harding
"......What is a good source? A contemporary historian -- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes -- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay -- secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him.
Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character of the man they follow. As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of the documents turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ.''
These historians lived during that time Jesus was said to have lived. There are staggering amounts of documents about Roman history. Historian Livy alone composed 142 volumes. Other historians who lived during that time are:
Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Justus of Tiberius, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mela, Rufus Cartius, Quintillian, Quintus Curtius, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus, and Valerius Maximus.
And NONE of them wrote a thing about Jesus. A man who caused the sun to darken, the 'heavens' to open, and mountains to shake! Who repeatedly drew ''multitudes'' of people to his sermons, raised the dead, walked on water, changed water to wine, five fish to 500, raised the dead, and had huge crowds following him, and then publicly tried and executed!
And yet not ONE of the writers contemporary to him (ie 1 AD to 60 AD) wrote a single line about him?
How is that possible?
It's like Nelson Mandela or Dr Martin Luther King Jr living their entire lives with not a single world written about them till the year 2060. How is that possible?
okeyxyz: OK, Just to make you happy.., F@ck!! the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and John. How about the letters of Paul, peter, John? These were contemporaries of Jesus, Who either interracted with him when he was alive or heard of him and referred to him in their writings? Are you gonna tell me now that Peter, John and Paul never existed too? Do you mean to tell us that these guys threw away their lives, became outcast of Judaism, were subject to Roman persecution and ultimately martyred for a fictional character?
Why not? It happens all the time. People die for their deities all the time. Doesn't mean those deities were real entities. Serapis for instance was clearly an invented deity, created by Ptolemy III, and had numerous followers who gave up their lives for him. Before them, worshippers of Amun, the southern Egyptian God, were put to death for refusing to renounce their worship. So it happens all the time. That somebody died or went through persecution on account of their god doesn't automatically imply their god was real.
As for the existence of 'Paul', there is no contemporary record of this character having ever existed. Same as 'Peter' and 'John'. All historical references to these characters were made several decades after they were alleged to have lived. Like Jesus, no writers contemporary to his era wrote a single word about 'Paul'. Or 'John'. Or 'Peter'. All references to these characters and their alleged activities are based on hearsay.
There were writers and scholars contemporaneous to Socrates, people like Plato and Xenophon who confirmed his existence as eyewitness sources. The difference with ''Jesus'' is that nobody wrote ANYTHING about him till nearly a century AFTER he supposedly lived. Some estimates put the earliest gospels at around 70 AD.
Excerpts:
Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
by Kenneth Harding
"......What is a good source? A contemporary historian -- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes -- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay -- secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him.
Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character of the man they follow. As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of the documents turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ.''
These historians lived during that time Jesus was said to have lived. There are staggering amounts of documents about Roman history. Historian Livy alone composed 142 volumes. Other historians who lived during that time are:
Aulus Perseus, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Justus of Tiberius, Lucanus, Lucius Florus, Petronius, Phaedrus, Philo Judaeus, Phlegon, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Pomponius Mela, Rufus Cartius, Quintillian, Quintus Curtius, Seneca, Silius Italicus, Statius Caelicius, Theon of Smyrna, Valerius Flaccus, and Valerius Maximus.
And NONE of them wrote a thing about Jesus. A man who caused the sun to darken, the 'heavens' to open, and mountains to shake! Who repeatedly drew ''multitudes'' of people to his sermons, raised the dead, walked on water, changed water to wine, five fish to 500, raised the dead, and had huge crowds following him, and then publicly tried and executed!
And yet not ONE of the writers contemporary to him (ie 1 AD to 60 AD) wrote a single line about him?
How is that possible?
It's like Nelson Mandela or Dr Martin Luther King Jr living their entire lives with not a single world written about them till the year 2060. How is that possible?
Always the same lame excuse of recycled work.... if its not God is non - existent, if the divinity is too hard for em to comprehend, they throw up that He (Jesus Christ) NEVER existed... furthermore they compare Jesus and Socrates and prefer socrates becos he was just a philosopher unlike Jesus who claimed divinity, hence their distaste for Him...una never tire... if He is a myth why all this brohaha ... why disturb your limited life?
Why??
This Jesus Christ done hear am oh? Just typed Jesus Christ on google 139 Million topic for or against Him, typed julius ceasar it showed 447, 000 and socrates showed 15 Million.
back to the topic, are you sure about the above people you posted up there?
And NONE of them wrote a thing about Jesus. A man who caused the sun to darken, the 'heavens' to open, and mountains to shake! Who repeatedly drew ''multitudes'' of people to his sermons, raised the dead, walked on water, changed water to wine, five fish to 500, raised the dead, and had huge crowds following him, and then publicly tried and executed!
Have you ever heard of Chris Angel? I hadn't, but apparently he is a powerful magician who recently walked on water. The world did not sit up and take notice, either. I did not see any headlines or any breaking news on CNN.
Serious minded people do not sit up and take notice of deluded 'miracle workers, which is how the Roman society would have.viewed a so-called Jewish messiah.
Remember, the Jews were a.very insignificant part of the Roman empire. Even amongst his own people, Jesus was scoffed at, so one would not expect any one outside their small society to notice him.
Later on, when his followers were starting to create disturbances with their endless preaching, pple started to take notice of them.
Always the same lame excuse of recycled work.... if its not God is non - existent, if the divinity is too hard for em to comprehend, they throw up that He (Jesus Christ) NEVER existed... furthermore they compare Jesus and Socrates and prefer socrates becos he was just a philosopher unlike Jesus who claimed divinity, hence their distaste for Him...una never tire... if He is a myth why all this brohaha ... why disturb your limited life?
Why??
This Jesus Christ done hear am oh? Just typed Jesus Christ on google 139 Million topic for or against Him, typed julius ceasar it showed 447, 000 and socrates showed 15 Million.
back to the topic, are you sure about the above people you posted up there?
Eyaa, kpele oh...
I dey tell you my Brother!
This is a call to all christians to increase the tempo of our call.
Like play like play Bible is fulfilling Its prophesy.
Have you ever heard of Chris Angel? I hadn't, but apparently he is a powerful magician who recently walked on water. The world did not sit up and take notice, either. I did not see any headlines or any breaking news on CNN.
Serious minded people do not sit up and take notice of deluded 'miracle workers, which is how the Roman society would have.viewed a so-called Jewish messiah.
Remember, the Jews were a.very insignificant part of the Roman empire. Even amongst his own people, Jesus was scoffed at, so one would not expect any one outside their small society to notice him.
Later on, when his followers were starting to create disturbances with their endless preaching, pple started to take notice of them.
Don't be dishonest. You picked out just ONE item by Chris Angel to juxtapose with the numerous alleged deeds of Jesus. Raising the dead, being followed by huge multitudes, ascending to heaven, publicly crucified, his birth led to the massacre of thousands of newborns, his mother a virgin, commanding a storm to cease, the sky turned black when he died, feeding thousands of people with three fish, transforming water into wine, a guiding star leading three wise men to his cradle etc etc etc. All this never happened to Chris Angel, and if it did, he'd be the best known guy on earth today by a healthy mile!
Why are you still disturbed by this Jesus "Myth"... if He was actually a myth, why are you disturbed as hisblud rightly pointed out. In any case i saw some one posting the above and refuting it. Happy reading, and by the way, na zeitgeist...
The red is the question and the blue is the answer to zeitgeist...
Zeitgeist On The Historians
In the movie "Zeitgeist", Peter Joseph says, "Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the son of Mary, who traveled with 12 followers, healing people and the like?"
Actually, we have about forty references to Christ outside of the Bible from within 150 years of Jesus' time, including references by at least three (probably four) non-Christian historians, and evidence that a fifth historian also wrote about Jesus.
"There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one."
He shows a list of 23 names, but what's interesting is that the majority of the names on the list aren't historians. Only eight of the people on that list are actually historians (though two are the same person, listed under separate names), the rest being poets, orators, novelists, philosophers, etc.
NOTE NOT ALL ARE HISTORIANS AND CHECK THE DATES OF THE SO CALLED HISTORIANS. Aulus Perseus (poet/satirist, 34-62 A.D.) Columella (wrote about agriculture and trees, 4-70 A.D.) Dio Chrysostom (orator, 40-120 A.D.) Lucanus (poet, 39-65 A.D.) Petronius (novelist, 27-66 A.D.) Phaedrus (writer of fables, 15-50 A.D.) Philo Judaeus (philosopher, 20-50 A.D.) Pomponius Mela (geographer, ?-45 A.D.) Quintillian (writer on oratory and rhetoric, 35-100 A.D.) Seneca (scientist, 3-65 A.D.) Silius Italicus (poet, ?-101 A.D.) Statius Caelicius (poet, ?-?, but 1st century) Theon of Smyrna (mathematician/astronomer, 70?-135 A.D.) Valerius Flaccus (poet, ?-90 A.D.) Valerius Maximus (orator, 20 B.C?.-50 A.D.?)
The usual response when I point this out to Christ-mythers is along the lines of, "okay, so maybe they aren't historians, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have written about Jesus, right?". Sure, and they could have written about Julius Caesar, but I'm guessing that most of these people did not. These are the eight (err...seven) actual historians: Justus of Tiberius (birth and death dates unknown, but a contemporary of Josephus. We have only fragments of his writings, so we have no idea if he wrote about Jesus or not) Livy (59 B.C. to 17 A.D., since he died before Jesus' ministry, he would not have had cause to write about Him) Lucius Florus (70?-140? A.D., only wrote of times prior to Jesus') Phlegon (80?-? A.D.) Most of he wrote is lost, but he did apparently write about Jesus. According to Origen, in his response to Celsus, "Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events...but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions." See here) Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D., the only text in which he would likely have mentioned Jesus, "History of His Times", is mostly lost) Plutarch (46-122 A.D., being Greco-Roman himself, wrote primarily of Greeks and Romans. He may have had cause to mention Jesus, but we have only about half of what he wrote, so we don't really know if he did or not). Rufus Curtius Quintus Curtius The last two, Rufus Curtius and Quintus Curtius, are actually the same person, Quintus Curtius Rufus, whose only surviving work is a biography of Alexander the Great. His birth and death dates are unknown, but he wrote between 41 and 54 A.D. Of these seven historians, only three of them, Phlegon, Pliny the Elder and Plutarch, would have had cause to mention Jesus, and one of them, Phlegon, reportedly did. We don't know if the other two did or not, since we've lost much of their work over time. But think of it this way - there are seven historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus (Phlegon, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger). Of these seven, we know that at least three of them did, a fourth mentioned a "Chrestus" (that most scholars, even non-Christian ones, believe was a reference to Christ), and we have reason to believe that a fifth one, Phlegon, also did (though we no longer have the actual text). So, per the evidence, at least five out of seven of the historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus likely mentioned Him. There are only two historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus, but (as far as we know) did not. But since much of their work has been lost over time, we can't say for certain that they didn't mention Jesus.
"Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus' existence. Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus are the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to Christus or the Christ, which is in fact not a name but a title. It means the anointed one."
Correct, but modern historians don't doubt that they refer to Jesus, who, outside of the Gospels, was most commonly referred to simply as "Christ", even by Paul. Tactitus writes of Christ being executed by Pontius Pilate and says that His followers were blamed for the Roman fire. Suetonius writes of the followers of "Chrestus" being expelled from Rome by Claudius, an event which is also mentioned in the Bible (Acts 18:2). Pliny writes of Christ's followers worshipping Christ instead of the emperor, and the persecution that followed because of this. Three historians mentioning a person is considered, by rational people, good evidence that the person existed. Even Suetonius' reference, the one that is considered most in doubt of these three, is considered a reference to Jesus by the Jewish Encyclopedia. Christ-mythers sometimes try to argue that these passages are Christian interpolations or that they weren't talking about Jesus, but there's no good argument for either one. We don't declare something an interpolation unless there is some kind of evidence for it (such as the reference being in some copies but not others, or containing information the author couldn't have known, or the style of writing being out-of-character for that author), and there is none here. The Tacitus and Pliny passages are strongly anti-Christian and clearly not the work of a Christian. I even had one Christ-myther try to convince me that these passages were both"Christian interpolations" and "not about Jesus", in other words that Christians wrote these passages in order to provide fake evidence for Jesus, but weren't writing about Jesus when they did so.
"The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years."
What Christ-mythers tend to ignore is the fact that there are two references to Jesus by Josephus, only one of which was interpolated, the other of which is genuine. The reference in book 18 of "Antiquites of the Jews" is the one Joseph is referring to here, and most historians agree that the interpolation was only partial, that Josephus did write about Jesus, and a later scribe (probably Eusebius, or a contemporary of his) took offense to what Josephus had written and altered the passage to portray Jesus in a more positive light. There is strong evidence for this in the fact that the reference in book 18 seems to be arguing with itself, at one point calling Jesus a "man" and then saying "if it be lawful to call him a man". The other Josephus reference is in book 20 of "Antiquities of the Jews", where Josephus writes that Jesus was the brother of James (whose trial Josephus is writing about) and that Jesus was called the Christ. This reference is not in doubt, showing no signs of interpolation. Some Christ-mythers say that the interpolation in book 18 automatically puts this one under suspicion, that if Eusebius altered one passage, he could well have altered the other. But this is impossible, since the passage in book 20 was referenced by Origen almost a century before Eusebius' time. So, yes, we do have at least three, probably four or five, non-Christian historians who apparently wrote about Christ and cannot easily be dismissed as strong evidence for His existence. One thing I frequently ask Christ-mythers is if they can name a fictional character who was written about by a historian as if the historian believe that the person had existed within a century of their time. So far, none have been able to even come up with a single example. Yet they'd have us believe that at least three historians wrote about the "fictional" Jesus as if they believed He existed. A common objection to these four historians is that, since none of them actually witnessed the events they wrote about (all were born after Jesus' crucifixion), we should dismiss them as "hearsay". But about 99% of ancient history is written by historians who didn't personally witness the events they describe. Most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from historians writing about four centuries after he lived. None of the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination were written by eyewitnesses. As far as we know, no contemporary historians wrote about Hannibal. We'd be tossing out practically everything we know about ancient times if we discarded everything written by historians who didn't personally witness the events. I've never heard of the preposterious idea that we should do this, except from Christ-mythers, and only when it comes to Jesus. What's amusing is that of the "numerous historians" (not!) who Joseph says should have mentioned Jesus but didn't, most (if not all) of them would never have seen Jesus, either having been born too late or having lived in different locations. So even if they had mentioned Jesus, Joseph would be dismissing them as "hearsay", also.
"You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record."
He did. He was mentioned by at least three non-Christian historians. But I assume Joseph means that his miracles and resurrection themselves would have made it into the historical record. Again, it did. We have four Gospels, all written within the same century as the events themselves, which mention the miracles and resurrection. But, of course, Christ-mythers automatically reject this evidence as "biased". So, basically, you can't win with them. If the author mentions the miracles, then they're dismissed as being biased. If they didn't mention the miracles, then they're dismissed for not mentioning them. They find ways to dismiss everything written about Jesus, just so they can declare that no evidence exists. Of course, I recently had one skeptic argue to me that if we only had references to Jesus' miracles in non-Christian sources, he would be convinced. The problem is,we have that. We know that Josephus was a non-Christian, yet we have references to Jesus' miracles in Antiquities 18. But, of course, that passage is an interpolation. How do we know this? Because he's a non-Christian, yet mentions Jesus' miracles. So, basically, even though we have exactly what this skeptic says he wants, we have to dismiss it. If we had other examples of non-Christian writing about Jesus' miracles, we'd be dismissing them, as well.
This is a call to all christians to increase the tempo of our call.
Like play like play Bible is fulfilling Its prophesy.
I decided to follow hisblud and search for Richard dawkins, even the "great" Richard dawkins is only 14 Million on google search compared to Jesus Christ! An ancient "man" [Jesus Christ] to a modern man [Richard dawkins] on google popularity search
Have you heard of Erham Bart? Got this quote one a website about his book "Did Jesus Exist"
Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.
a summary that might interest you on the book "DID JESUS EXIST?"
Bart Ehrman's New Book - 'Did Jesus Exist?'
I just finished reading historian Bart Ehrman's latest book, called "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument For Jesus Of Nazareth". Though most of his recent books have argued against Christian beliefs, since Ehrman is admittedly an agnostic with atheistic leanings, this is one that I believe most Christians with an interest in the mythicism issue would enjoy. I myself have recently published a book on the mythicism issue, but I'd say Ehrman's book makes a more persuasive case. While I am a Christian and admittedly biased in favor of Jesus, Ehrman has absolutely no reason to believe in a historical Jesus other than having been persuaded by the abundant historical evidence. Though I suppose the same goes for me in some sense, since I am a former atheist who was swayed by the evidence, though not just for Jesus' historicity (as Ehrman was) but for His resurrection and divinity as well.
Erhman does argue against a divine/resurrected Jesus in this book, which is no surprise, but he does an excellent job of showing how all evidence favors the historical existence of Jesus, and even shows that the crucifixion is a detail that early Christians could not possibly have made up. Surprising to me, he doesn't put much stock in the references by non-Christians like Josephus and Tacitus. While he agrees that these authors certainly wrote about Jesus of Nazareth (mythicists generally argue that their references were forged), he considers them too far removed from the events to be of much use. Surprisingly to me (again), he argues that the references in Christian writings, including (but not limited to) the Gospels, are the best evidence for a historical Jesus.
Ehrman talks about the methods historians use when considering whether a certain event or detail is true or false. One method is "Contextual Credibility", which is a negative criteria, which means that while it can be used to determine whether something is false, it cannot be used to determine whether something is true. "Contextual Credibility" considers whether the event in question fits with the historical context.
The second method is "Multiple Attestation", which is a positive criteria. Basically, if an event appears in multiple independent accounts, then it's more likely to be true. However, this cannot be used to determine whether something is false. An event appearing in only one source isn't evidence that the event never happened.
The third method is the "Criterion of Dissimilarity", which is also a positive criteria. It essentially says that if a detail is one that is unlikely to have been fabricated by the authors, then it likely happened. For example, there's no reason the Gospel authors would have wanted their Messiah to come from a small, insignificant town like Nazareth. It was even considered a bit of an embarassment. Thus Jesus' coming from Nazareth passes this criteria, meaning He probably came from Nazareth. Ehrman points out that the crucifixion does very well with all three criteria. It is known that Romans were crucifying trouble-makers at the time, and Jesus certainly would have been considered a trouble-maker, thus it passed "Contextual Credibility". As for "Multiple Attestation", the resurrection is mentioned in many independent sources. As for the "Criterion of Dissimilarity", the crucifixion was considered a humiliating death, and even Paul considered it a "stumbling block" that he had trouble getting past. It's not a detail that would have been made up, and thus the crucifixion passed this as well.
While mythicists dismiss the New Testament authors as being biased, Ehrman, while agreeing with there is such a bias, says that the bias alone does not even begin to explain how Jesus could have been wholly fabricated. While mythicists argue that the earliest existing references to Jesus come from writings decades after the events, Ehrman shows that the claims about Jesus date to the 30's AD, no more than a few years after the events. The conversion of Paul, who was originally skeptical of Christianity and even persecuted Christians, can be clearly shown to have happened prior to 35 AD, which would have been impossible if the Jesus stories had yet to be "invented".
He argues that Paul's writings alone clearly show that he knew people who had to have known Jesus personally, including Jesus' brother, James, and at least some of the apostles, and found them persuasive. Ehrman believes that some details of the story of Jesus has been shown to have expanded over time (for example, he argues that the earliest traditions say that Jesus became the "son of God" upon being resurrected, then later ones say it was when he was baptized, and then later ones say he was the "son of God" all along), however, he points out that all traditions, even the earliest, have a clearly historical Jesus at their core.
Mythicists argue that the Gospel of Mark is the only original source for the story of Jesus, and that all other sources just borrowed from Mark. Ehrman shows that this is not the case (not only is there much that is original in Luke and Matthew, John's Gospel shows no dependence on Mark at all, and we also have other unique sources in other early non-canonical writings, and even much of what is said about Jesus in the Book of Acts shows no dependency on any of the Gospels - not even Luke's Gospel, despite having the same author as Acts!) He also points out that while early non-Christians leveled all sorts of arguments against Jesus, one argument that was never leveled against Jesus was that He didn't exist at all. In fact, it's not until the late 18th century that the idea came into being.
One point I find interesting is that he claims that since all of the traditions show a historical Jesus who was crucified at their core, this is strong evidence for a historical Jesus who was crucified. He dismisses the so-called "discrepancies" as pretty much irrelevant to the question of a historical Jesus, saying that they're only evidence against those things on which they disagree (I like to point out that the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination have clear discrepancies, but this doesn't cause us to question whether Caesar was assassinated).
I would have to say that the same goes for the resurrection itself. It's part of all early traditions, and is vigorously defended by the early church. The exact same arguments skeptics level against the resurrection are also equally applicable to the crucifixion and general historicity of Jesus. Skeptics point out "discrepancies" in the resurrection accounts, but also point out "discrepancies" in the crucifixion accounts. Skeptics argue that the "resurrection" accounts come from decades later, by people who weren't actually witnesses to the resurrection, but these are the exact same sources from where we get the crucifixion accounts. So the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are no more or less problematic than the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion.
Now, most skeptics go on to argue that since crucifixion doesn't involve anything "supernatural", but resurrection obviously does, then we have good reason to believe that the crucifixion happened but the resurrection did not. While I would consider this reasonable for those who don't believe in miracles, this seems, to me, to be the only reasonable basis for believing in the crucifixion and not the resurrection. However, it only applies to those who don't believe that miracles are possible, which those who believe in a transcendent God do. This means that there is no "historical" basis for doubting the resurrection any more than there is for doubting the crucifixion. It's all a matter of what one personally believes is possible or not.
He does, in my opinion, make some errors, though. As has been pointed out elsewhere, he suggests that a picture of a rooster which was brought up by Acharya S was Acharya's own creation. It was actually a drawing from another source that she simply used, and never claimed she drew it herself.
Also, he points out that Christians claim the vast number of ancient copies of the Gospels makes them "trustworthy", and he disagrees, saying that while it confirms that they do likely reflect (for the most part) what was originally written, this says nothing about whether what was originally written was true or not. But I have yet to see any Christian argue that the vast number of copies makes them "true". When Christians say it makes them "trustworthy", they mean precisely what Ehrman agrees with, that they're trustworthy representations of what the authors originally wrote.
He also claims that Jesus' apocalyptic language means that he was foreseeing the end of the world within a generation or two of His time, seemingly ignoring the more likely possibility that He was using hyperbole to get His point across. Similarly, he sees Jesus' occasional third-person use of "Son of Man" to mean that Jesus saw the Son of Man as someone other than Himself. However, it was actually quite common in those days for people to refer to themselves in the third person as a way of stressing their own importance. Julius Caesar tended to refer to himself in the third-person as well, but that doesn't mean he wasn't talking about himself.
Ehrman discusses in the book how, in the classes he teaches, he devotes very little time to "the other side", saying that there is no "the" other side, but many different sides to the issues involved. To respond to all of it couldn't be done in a 15-week course. The same, more or less, goes for this book. While he addresses common mythicist arguments, he really doesn't get into the pro-resurrection or pro-divinity arguments for Jesus, really just saying that historians need to look at what's likely, and miracles are automatically unlikely, which I'd say reflects his agnostic/atheistic bias as there are many historians who believe in Jesus' resurrection and divinity.
He points out that mythicists frequently reject evidence that doesn't fit their biases (for example, they believe that since Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, all references to Nazareth in the New Testament must have been forgeries added later, despite no evidence that they were). But Ehrman more or less does the same with the resurrection. Not that he believes the resurrection accounts were forged after the writings of the New Testament, but that he believes they must have been events that were made up sometime between the crucifixion and the writing of the New Testament texts.
It should be noted that all of the early Christian sources agree that Jesus was resurrected. While, obviously, anyone who is skeptical of miracles will be skeptical of this claim, to say that the historical evidence alone does NOT favor the resurrection is incorrect. It most certainly does. Thus anyone who goes where the evidence points, rather than dismissing evidence that disagrees with their preconceptions, would have to conclude that Jesus' resurrection is as much a historical fact as His crucifixion.
So, basically, you can't win with them. If the author mentions the miracles, then they're dismissed as being biased. If they didn't mention the miracles, then they're dismissed for not mentioning them.
They find ways to dismiss everything written about Jesus, just so they can declare that no evidence exists.
is this a clear summary of Christ-mythers who wouldnt want to accept any evidence?
@rossije On a second tot, what do you consider as a historical methodologies used to prove that Jesus Christ NEVER existed? I would think it would go a long way to help in your arguement against His existence.
honeychild: @ Plaetton: and how about the references to Jesus by Tacitus and Josephus?
"Consequently, to get rid of the report,[that the fire in Rome came was actually a direct order from Nero himself] Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." - Tacitus, the Annals 15:44
"AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned-
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20 chapter 9)
Joseph lived from 37 C.E to c 100 C.E and Tacitus from 56 C.E to 117 C.E.
So many folks here don't get the point. Its not about whether Ray Higgins is accurate about Airius, its about how they all began to dogmatize spirituality, create stories of God and claims that God had spoken, including Airius, no human is above another on this earth, in any way. Just because someone thinks he is strong or smart, doesnt make them know everything or have the right to tell people how to approach God, including Airius. What is the rush to have religions and rituals like Islam, Judaism and Christianity, if not to control people socially and culturally. It is not Ray Higins who is wrong, it is Airius and all indoctrinators of the past, who were wrong to say they know how we must think, we also have a conscience, the people of the past knew no better than anyone today. Trust your self, trust God you Africans, before we are enslaved again. God did not create you to depend on anyone else for conscience & intuition.
Ray Higins sermon will always be right, because at the end of the day even those who say they are Christian, are such by faith, by being Christ like, which is, to obey one's conscience, something we can't see, we have to be it to verify it. Funny how all non black religions go back to what even a child knows, conscience, back to square one, anyone could have told you that, you dont need a European Jewish book that claims others are chosen people. These religions we stupidly revere are just attempts by our Albino brothers to have power over us black Africans.
You expect me to prove a negative? That would be quite a task. I'm sorry but the onus is on you to prove that Jesus existed.
And no... ''the bible says so'' is not proof.
Do you know there was no writer contemporaneous to the Jesus era who wrote a single word about Jesus? The Jewish/Greek hellenistic period was an era in which there were hundreds of writers who wrote even the most mundane records... yet, not one word about a 'Jesus'. All accounts of a 'Jesus' were written several decades after his 'ascension', and were based on HEARSAY, not eyewitness evidence.
Secondly, the Gospels are written by anonymous persons, at least 100 years AFTER the alleged events occurred. The scrolls were 'found' somewhere, and names like 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke' etc attached to them, to give the impression, still held by most christians, that those characters actually wrote the respective volumes attributed to them.
But there's no evidence for the existence of a 'Luke', or a 'Mark', or 'John' who wrote any gospels. They are fictional characters. MIND YOU THESE THINGS I'M STATING ARE NOT CONTESTED BY THE CHURCH OR BY THEOLOGIANS OR RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS. They just don't go about publicizing these facts to the faithful.
I think you should read the infancy of Thomas it was written by neighbors of Jesus when he was a child isn't that proof I mean a fantasy character can't have a childhood stories or even neighbors to write about it
