How to make an atheist feel the nearness of Jesus without using the Bible...

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources.

Like what?

However, I think if you were to use this argument on a history major, or even a big history buff, you will run into issues holding this together.

Like what?

For myself, I'm not the greatest at regurgitating facts... but I do have a good nose at detecting fallacies and possible manipulation of the facts.

So what would be the fallacies and manipulation of facts in this case?

Granted, not everything here is precisely accurate. For example, most every scholar agrees Jesus was born circa 2 or 3 B.C. and not A.D. 0, as 1still_waters suggests at one point. But these sorts of things are negligible to his point.

I would tell you that you are assuming the motivations of the people 2000 years ago.

Such as?

Also, they may not have actually been following Jesus (assuming that Christians were actually being persecuted at this time, I cannot verify because I'm on the street corner with you) as being Christians, Christ = Messiah.

You mean they may not have been following Jesus as the messiah? What would they have been following him as? All the evidence we have points to their belief in his being the messiah. So why would we give any plausibility to pure speculation?

And your suggested skepticism at things like Christian persecution looks a bit absurd. Things like this are considered common knowledge. Is this how you approach all historical claims or is this just a case of double standard?

There were quite a few people that claimed to be a messiah, the character Jesus is not alone.

What significance is this supposed to have to the point of 1still_waters? Also, you seem pretty confident about that as a historical fact. But you don't provide any sources for it. Shouldn't we treat it with the same skepticism with which you have approached the claims of 1still_waters?

Also, the name Jesus was a common name at the time.

You seem pretty confident about that as a historical fact. But you don't provide any sources for it. Shouldn't we treat it with the same skepticism with which you have approached the claims of 1still_waters?

There is also the heavy and suspicious involvement of Constantine when putting the manuscripts together and basically turning the cult into a religion. Much of the history is shown to be distorted, much of it in the favor of the church.

Again, I could say same as above. In fact, I could just repeat your initial statement back to you: "There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources."

If you think this makes 1still_waters argument moot, then doesn't it make your own points just as moot? And so what's the point of trading pointless conjectures?

Bottom line is that this is a subjective argument that pretends to know the motivation of 2000 year old people and attempts to polarize the issue.

How so? All you've done is come here and provide some alternative conjectures. You haven't done anything to undercut 1still_water's account and you haven't given us any reason to think your own is plausible.

 

[Jullianna]

Timeline info for persecution of christians:

Caligula: Ad37-41

Jewish tax war against christians began in 66-73 (didn't kill them, just hit them in their wallets)

Tertullian: Ad Scapulam, 5) tells us that a group of people presented themselves to the Roman governor of Asia, C. Arrius Antoninus, declaring themselves to be Christians, and encouraging the governor to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, "You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by."

These were the earliest I could find.

 

[Khorib2]

Like what?



Like what?



So what would be the fallacies and manipulation of facts in this case?

Granted, not everything here is precisely accurate. For example, most every scholar agrees Jesus was born circa 2 or 3 B.C. and not A.D. 0, as 1still_waters suggests at one point. But these sorts of things are negligible to his point.



Such as?



You mean they may not have been following Jesus as the messiah? What would they have been following him as? All the evidence we have points to their belief in his being the messiah. So why would we give any plausibility to pure speculation?

And your suggested skepticism at things like Christian persecution looks a bit absurd. Things like this are considered common knowledge. Is this how you approach all historical claims or is this just a case of double standard?



What significance is this supposed to have to the point of 1still_waters? Also, you seem pretty confident about that as a historical fact. But you don't provide any sources for it. Shouldn't we treat it with the same skepticism with which you have approached the claims of 1still_waters?



You seem pretty confident about that as a historical fact. But you don't provide any sources for it. Shouldn't we treat it with the same skepticism with which you have approached the claims of 1still_waters?



Again, I could say same as above. In fact, I could just repeat your initial statement back to you: "There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources."

If you think this makes 1still_waters argument moot, then doesn't it make your own points just as moot? And so what's the point of trading pointless conjectures?



How so? All you've done is come here and provide some alternative conjectures. You haven't done anything to undercut 1still_water's account and you haven't given us any reason to think your own is plausible.

You're asking for evidence when StillWaters gave none himself, which was a point I addressed. I'm assuming this is a street conversation, and therefore allowed neither of us to provide evidence and responded as I would if this was a verbal exchange.

Secondly, I never disputed that Christians were being persecuted, I just said I am not sure about 30-60AD.

I mentioned Constantine because because that was when they decided which manuscripts would create the bible. Many were tossed. Who is to say how much is edited. The work of Josephus is suspected to have been tampered with.

I don't have to put forth anything plausible explaination to replace his conjecture. This thread is called "How to make an atheist feel the nearness of Jesus without using the Bible...". I simply responded as I would if I heard this argument on the street. It did not make me feel the nearness of Jesus, and I was pointing out why other atheists probably will not either.

 

[Khorib2]

Non-christian historical references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth:

Syrian - Mara bar Serapion: His ancient record of this is in storage in British archives; matches the scriptures

Roman - Tacitus: AD 116 - describes the crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of the Roman procurators

Roman - Julius Africanus - describes the solar eclipse described in the scriptures that took place at the time of the crucifixion

Greek - Phlegon - same as above

Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University said:
"This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise.... first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow .... The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm."

Re: the date of the crucifixion, Isaac Newton, determined this to be 4/23/AD 34 from the historical information he'd collected along with his scientific studies.

Perhaps these will help determine the time lines you seek.

Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus lived and died.

Sextus Julius Africanus wasn't alive either, by more than 100 years

Phlegon of Tralles wasn't alive during the life and death of Jesus

Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference here. His writings, however, never mention Jesus by name, he speaks only of "wise King". He also never mentions Christianity. Everyone agrees that he is most likely talking about Jesus, or at least the character Jesus represents. I have no problem accepting this as evidence.

 

[Thomas60]

Just took the liberty of cross referencing some sources on Mara bar Serapion. It was interesting to read. Connecting the dots between it and Jesus's crucifiction has gaps such as the NT describe the Romans executing Jesus, while *as above* is referred as 'Jews executing the wise-king', spoken as if it were general knowledge, an argument to popularity adds something to the Christian claim of Jesus's crucifiction. Both its ambiguity and anonymity should remind us of the difference between the possible and the probable however, I would say it is an item that could fit with the Christian Claim, but not be presented as leading evidence.

Still, best one so far, I'll make an effort to remember it

 

[1still_waters]

Just took the liberty of cross referencing some sources on Mara bar Serapion. It was interesting to read. Connecting the dots between it and Jesus's crucifiction has gaps such as the NT describe the Romans executing Jesus, while *as above* is referred as 'Jews executing the wise-king', spoken as if it were general knowledge, an argument to popularity adds something to the Christian claim of Jesus's crucifiction. Both its ambiguity and anonymity should remind us of the difference between the possible and the probable however, I would say it is an item that could fit with the Christian Claim, but not be presented as leading evidence.

Still, best one so far, I'll make an effort to remember it

So how do you explain the presence of verified Christians as early as 37 ad and 64 ad?? Where did they come from and how did they get there? Religions don't just spring up outta no where. Not even in evolutionary theory.

 

[Thomas60]

I would say Religions can spring up, don't doubt our ability of creativity
For Christianity, I would put the probability on an influencial figure, preacher, prophet or even a set new ideas (way of doing things) that were felt to be better and in order to reinforce that, telling that these practices are of the authority and repution of the currently existing God helps. Fitting new beliefs into a story around the life of an actual person would make sense, but I suspect the influencial figure came first.

So how do you explain the presence of verified Christians as early as 37 ad and 64 ad?? Where did they come from and how did they get there? Religions don't just spring up outta no where. Not even in evolutionary theory.

I never really considered christianities existance as problem that needed to be solved to discredit it. All explanations I'd create would be through deductive reasoning of how I think beliefs can propagate, unfortunately they aren't a substitute for evidence.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You're asking for evidence when StillWaters gave none himself, which was a point I addressed.

Your criticism of StillWaters was that "There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources."

Yet you went on to do the same thing yourself. This is why I said: "If you think this makes 1still_waters argument moot, then doesn't it make your own points just as moot? And so what's the point of trading pointless conjectures?"

I'm assuming this is a street conversation, and therefore allowed neither of us to provide evidence and responded as I would if this was a verbal exchange.

So are you saying it's not necessary to provide evidence? In which case, why bother making the charge you did?

I mentioned Constantine because because that was when they decided which manuscripts would create the bible.

Right, I still have no clue why you mention Constantine. It looks like a red-herring. StillWaters was presenting reasons for believing Jesus existed. Whether or not Constantine was involved in any substantial manner in deciding the Christian canon isn't relevant to that point. So why throw it in there?

Many were tossed. Who is to say how much is edited. The work of Josephus is suspected to have been tampered with.

While a certain passage in Josephus is questioned by some scholars, that passage isn't the only reference he makes to Jesus (e.g., Antiquities 20:200). We have no reason to doubt these other passages. He also mentions persons like John the Baptist (Antiquities 18:116-119), which supports his being a historical figure. And an argument can be made from that point (e.g., If the Christians were going to make up Jesus, nevermind the problem of where the *Christ*ians came from in the first place, why tie him to another fairly well-known (in that region) historical figure where the persons could have simply pointed out something like "Uh, we remember John the Baptist, but we don't remember this Jesus guy...").

And as the Josephus reference mentions, Jesus had at least one person known to be his sibling. The Bible confirms this too (Galatians 1:19) and, in fact, he serves a prominent role in the NT Church (Gal. 2:9). It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that Paul and the other apostles invented this person, Jesus, out of thin air, and then gave him real life siblings and no one questioned any of this or thought to themselves "Gee, I don't remember James having a brother…" To suggest that James himself is a made up personage would just show the desperate lengths some atheists will go to.

After all, it's not like the early church didn't have it's critics. It faced huge opposition from the Jewish religious leaders. You would think that their best argument against *Christ*ianity would be that there was no Christ. Yet we have no record of them (or anyone else for that matter) making such an argument. This is why NT scholar Craig Blomberg notes that "‎The only serious scholar to defend this view [that Jesus never existed] in the past generation is G. A. Wells in a trilogy of works: The Jesus of the Early Christians (London: Pemberton, 1971); Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton; Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975); and the Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982). ... This claim can be decisively refuted without once appealing to Christian evidence" (Jesus and the Gospels. 370 n. 10).

I don't have to put forth anything plausible explaination to replace his conjecture.

I would think you do if you expect people to take what you're saying seriously. Simply providing alternative possibilities doesn't pass as a defeater to a claim. It seems that I have to make this point a lot around here, but there is little point to simply point out what is *possible*. It's possible Jesus was an alien. Maybe the countries of Greece and Rome never existed as we understand it. They may have been established in medieval times and the entire Greco-Roman history was fabricated during that period. Maybe...

This thread is called "How to make an atheist feel the nearness of Jesus without using the Bible...". I simply responded as I would if I heard this argument on the street. It did not make me feel the nearness of Jesus, and I was pointing out why other atheists probably will not either.

Well regardless of how you feel about the nearness of Jesus, you've said nothing substantial to the point of Jesus' existence.

Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus lived and died.

Sextus Julius Africanus wasn't alive either, by more than 100 years

Phlegon of Tralles wasn't alive during the life and death of Jesus

Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference here. His writings, however, never mention Jesus by name, he speaks only of "wise King". He also never mentions Christianity. Everyone agrees that he is most likely talking about Jesus, or at least the character Jesus represents. I have no problem accepting this as evidence.

I don't see why you think it worth pointing out that Tacitus, African and Phlegon weren't alive during Jesus' time. Most of our historical knowledge comes from sources written long after the death of all those alive during the time (Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). If you're suggesting that no document written by someone not alive during the time of the subject discussed doesn't count as evidence then I think you're going to be the one who is going to "run into issues" with a historian.

And for some reason you also want to assert that Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference... well says who? All you've done is assert it, and apparently, based on what you said earlier, you feel no need to put forth any plausible explanations. Well two can play at that game:

All the sources mentioned above (Tacitus, Africanus, etc.) are acceptable references here.

Now concerning your criticisms of Serapion, see here: Mara Bar Serapion. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

I don't have time right now to do a back and forth with you, so you can have the last word and I'll check back in a few days.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I would say Religions can spring up, don't doubt our ability of creativity
For Christianity, I would put the probability on an influencial figure, preacher, prophet or even a set new ideas (way of doing things) that were felt to be better and in order to reinforce that, telling that these practices are of the authority and repution of the currently existing God helps. Fitting new beliefs into a story around the life of an actual person would make sense, but I suspect the influencial figure came first.

I never really considered christianities existance as problem that needed to be solved to discredit it. All explanations I'd create would be through deductive reasoning of how I think beliefs can propagate, unfortunately they aren't a substitute for evidence.

The issue is why one would need to find an alternative explanation at all. It makes sense (in some sense ) to say that Jesus was a radical and influential rabbi in the 1st century A.D. (who gave rise to their being a 1st century A.D.) that was maybe misguided himself or misunderstood by his disciples, but what doesn't make sense is to deny that he existed and then have to posit some other Jesus-like teacher to explain the existence of Christianity! It's actually sort of funny.

 

[Thomas60]

that was maybe misguided himself or misunderstood by his disciples, but what doesn't make sense is to deny that he existed

I actually agree with you, for the interpretation prescribed in italics. I fear english language is susceptible to make claiming that there is a lack of evidence to support a claim the same as denying

 

[Scottybrandon]

I would be careful who you debate. Jesus said "dont cast your pearls before swine" dont debate just for debate, dont argue just for arguing. Just pray for opportunities and "be clever like a fox and innocent like a dove"

 

[Jullianna]

Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus lived and died.

Sextus Julius Africanus wasn't alive either, by more than 100 years

Phlegon of Tralles wasn't alive during the life and death of Jesus

Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference here. His writings, however, never mention Jesus by name, he speaks only of "wise King". He also never mentions Christianity. Everyone agrees that he is most likely talking about Jesus, or at least the character Jesus represents. I have no problem accepting this as evidence.

I don't see anywhere in my post where I stated they were living when Jesus lived. I'm merely pointing to historical records.

Mara bar Serapion is only acceptable to whom?

 

[Jullianna]

I would be careful who you debate. Jesus said "dont cast your pearls before swine" dont debate just for debate, dont argue just for arguing. Just pray for opportunities and "be clever like a fox and innocent like a dove"

Exactly, Scottybrandon. Thank you. This is why I merely posted historical data, made no claims, gave no opinions and/or theories, but have received only opinions and theories in response that have very little, if any, revelance to the posts. We can toss theories around all day and get nowhere...

Historical data is one thing, but the holiness of God is another. It's not to be poured into troughs.

It would seem to me that an atheist would have the greater battle to fight. As they say in law school, a negative can't be proven. I'm wondering why some believe the burden of proof falls upon christians.... Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Jullianna]

As they said in days of ore..time to blow this popstand.

 

[Khorib2]

Your criticism of StillWaters was that "There are far too many assumptions and unverified facts and not enough sources."

Yet you went on to do the same thing yourself. This is why I said: "If you think this makes 1still_waters argument moot, then doesn't it make your own points just as moot? And so what's the point of trading pointless conjectures?"



So are you saying it's not necessary to provide evidence? In which case, why bother making the charge you did?



Right, I still have no clue why you mention Constantine. It looks like a red-herring. StillWaters was presenting reasons for believing Jesus existed. Whether or not Constantine was involved in any substantial manner in deciding the Christian canon isn't relevant to that point. So why throw it in there?



While a certain passage in Josephus is questioned by some scholars, that passage isn't the only reference he makes to Jesus (e.g., Antiquities 20:200). We have no reason to doubt these other passages. He also mentions persons like John the Baptist (Antiquities 18:116-119), which supports his being a historical figure. And an argument can be made from that point (e.g., If the Christians were going to make up Jesus, nevermind the problem of where the *Christ*ians came from in the first place, why tie him to another fairly well-known (in that region) historical figure where the persons could have simply pointed out something like "Uh, we remember John the Baptist, but we don't remember this Jesus guy...").

And as the Josephus reference mentions, Jesus had at least one person known to be his sibling. The Bible confirms this too (Galatians 1:19) and, in fact, he serves a prominent role in the NT Church (Gal. 2:9). It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that Paul and the other apostles invented this person, Jesus, out of thin air, and then gave him real life siblings and no one questioned any of this or thought to themselves "Gee, I don't remember James having a brother…" To suggest that James himself is a made up personage would just show the desperate lengths some atheists will go to.

After all, it's not like the early church didn't have it's critics. It faced huge opposition from the Jewish religious leaders. You would think that their best argument against *Christ*ianity would be that there was no Christ. Yet we have no record of them (or anyone else for that matter) making such an argument. This is why NT scholar Craig Blomberg notes that "‎The only serious scholar to defend this view [that Jesus never existed] in the past generation is G. A. Wells in a trilogy of works: The Jesus of the Early Christians (London: Pemberton, 1971); Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton; Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975); and the Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982). ... This claim can be decisively refuted without once appealing to Christian evidence" (Jesus and the Gospels. 370 n. 10).



I would think you do if you expect people to take what you're saying seriously. Simply providing alternative possibilities doesn't pass as a defeater to a claim. It seems that I have to make this point a lot around here, but there is little point to simply point out what is *possible*. It's possible Jesus was an alien. Maybe the countries of Greece and Rome never existed as we understand it. They may have been established in medieval times and the entire Greco-Roman history was fabricated during that period. Maybe...



Well regardless of how you feel about the nearness of Jesus, you've said nothing substantial to the point of Jesus' existence.



I don't see why you think it worth pointing out that Tacitus, African and Phlegon weren't alive during Jesus' time. Most of our historical knowledge comes from sources written long after the death of all those alive during the time (Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). If you're suggesting that no document written by someone not alive during the time of the subject discussed doesn't count as evidence then I think you're going to be the one who is going to "run into issues" with a historian.

And for some reason you also want to assert that Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference... well says who? All you've done is assert it, and apparently, based on what you said earlier, you feel no need to put forth any plausible explanations. Well two can play at that game:

All the sources mentioned above (Tacitus, Africanus, etc.) are acceptable references here.

Now concerning your criticisms of Serapion, see here: Mara Bar Serapion. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

I don't have time right now to do a back and forth with you, so you can have the last word and I'll check back in a few days.

You have it seems, unfortunately, completely missed the point of my orginal post for Still_Waters. It is impossible to provide evidence in a mere verbal exchange, as you can site as many sources as you want and none of it can be verified. In that context, I responded to him as I would and also suspect many atheists might in such an exchange. The point was to show that his argument may not have his desired effect in practice.

You have quote mined me as well, which I do not appreciate. After I stated that he lacks sources, I said that I suspected this was to be used verbally, and as such no sources are expected.

Lastly, I am not at all interested in getting into a full historical debate with you because it will become a battle of attrition. We could literally spend weeks, if we both cared enough, digging up various sources of historical significance to back up our positions which can then even lead to an argument of credibility. I've been at work all day and out most of the evening, I have only planned on spending minutes on this subject for the purpose of speaking up as Still_Waters' intended audience... not to debate.

I do applaud your conviction to the sub-topic, but I hope you will understand that I do not have the motivation to get swept up in this debate simply because of the energy it will require on my behalf. I am also very clumsy with this forum set up and its is difficult to reference previous posts, quoting lines, etc while I am writing my own.

If you ever would like to have a full discussion about... anything, I find it much more comfortable to do so over voice-chat.

 

[wolfywolfs]

it wouldnt work with me either because i have a problem with the bad parts of the bible where god instructed people to murder and pillage caused a great flood killed million killed the first born of egypt and so on and so fourth i cant get my head around why a great being always resorted to violence and death its not really all loveing being or a great being if he thinks the only way to solve these problems is mass killing. thats a reason why i dont follow your god i dont deny the possibilty that there may of been a something that made us or started our lifes. if your god should himself now i wont follow unless he showed me prove that all those bad things that happened werent his doing then ill question him as why didnt he stop it.

also to still waters the logo you chose is abit inaccurate not all athesist belive in the beginning there was goupy soup we are all different and belive in seprate things or dont for many different reason. thats like me saying "everyone whose a chritian is afraid of what comes after death" which is not true

 

[Jullianna]

I don't see why you think it worth pointing out that Tacitus, African and Phlegon weren't alive during Jesus' time. Most of our historical knowledge comes from sources written long after the death of all those alive during the time (Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). If you're suggesting that no document written by someone not alive during the time of the subject discussed doesn't count as evidence then I think you're going to be the one who is going to "run into issues" with a historian.

And for some reason you also want to assert that Mara bar Serapion is the only acceptable reference... well says who? All you've done is assert it, and apparently, based on what you said earlier, you feel no need to put forth any plausible explanations. Well two can play at that game:

All the sources mentioned above (Tacitus, Africanus, etc.) are acceptable references here.

Now concerning your criticisms of Serapion, see here: Mara Bar Serapion. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

I don't have time right now to do a back and forth with you, so you can have the last word and I'll check back in a few days.

Very good point as well, Credo. The folks who came up with carbon dating weren't living at the time they claim their subjects were either, but apparently some rely on such things. *shrugs*

 

[Jullianna]

Just took the liberty of cross referencing some sources on Mara bar Serapion. It was interesting to read. Connecting the dots between it and Jesus's crucifiction has gaps such as the NT describe the Romans executing Jesus, while *as above* is referred as 'Jews executing the wise-king', spoken as if it were general knowledge, an argument to popularity adds something to the Christian claim of Jesus's crucifiction. Both its ambiguity and anonymity should remind us of the difference between the possible and the probable however, I would say it is an item that could fit with the Christian Claim, but not be presented as leading evidence.

Still, best one so far, I'll make an effort to remember it

LOL! thank you

 

[zeroturbulence]

A little comic relief: