Thousands reportedly witnessed Jesus's miracles, but where are the documents? (fanaticism, Abraham)

[MysticPhD]

The relevant documents recording them are assigned to a separate category of ancient writings and attributed to religious motivations as if that somehow alters their contemporaneous nature or validity as records. We are a post-literate society and conditioned to complete documentation of even the most remote and inconsequential events. Using that perspective to evaluate a barely civilized society with limited attention to events especially in remote provinces of a vast but largely illiterate empire is preposterous. Inflating the population numbers of ancient societies is also suspect.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The relevant documents recording them are assigned to a separate category of ancient writings and attributed to religious motivations as if that somehow alters their contemporaneous nature or validity as records. We are a post-literate society and conditioned to complete documentation of even the most remote and inconsequential events. Using that perspective to evaluate a barely civilized society with limited attention to events especially in remote provinces of a vast but largely illiterate empire is preposterous. Inflating the population numbers of ancient societies is also suspect.

I can see that.

But we are being asked to believe rather preposterous events that have never been replicated. Don't you think that asks for some hard evidence beyond I have faith?

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I can see that.

But we are being asked to believe rather preposterous events that have never been replicated. Don't you think that asks for some hard evidence beyond I have faith?

I have been asked to give up my wicked ways so as to avoid going to hell and instead go to heaven. I think it's reasonable to ask for solid proof that any or all of the claims being made are true, without blindly being expected to have faith.

[maat55]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I can see that.

But we are being asked to believe rather preposterous events that have never been replicated. Don't you think that asks for some hard evidence beyond I have faith?

Strangely, despite Jesus's 2 woodstockish events where he fed thousands, never made Roman news or documentation. Strangely, numbers of dead people being seen by many after his death never made historical news outside the bible. It is ridiculous for the religious to claim society was too illiterate to document these biblically claimed events.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by maat55

Strangely, despite Jesus's 2 woodstockish events where he fed thousands, never made Roman news or documentation. Strangely, numbers of dead people being seen by many after his death never made historical news outside the bible. It is ridiculous for the religious to claim society was too illiterate to document these biblically claimed events.

So you are asserting that the ancient Roman Empire had some vast press corps to record events in the remotest provinces with little impact on Rome itself??? You do NOT have to believe them but you do need to acknowledge that they were believed at the time and were seen as worthy of recording (an odious and tedious task). Applying modern thinking, culture, and zeitgeist to primitive ancient cultures is a sure way to get it wrong.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

Josephus: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

Ah! So all you have is the usual suspect that are regularly wheeled out by Christian apologists and just as regularly dismissed and debunked by the facts of history. But let's look at them.

Although the above is believed to have been penned by Josephus, it give no evidence for a Jesus The Christ. It is more likely that Josephus was repeating hearsay stories about Christians. He wasn't born at the time of the alleged events.

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Accepted by all but die-hard evangelical apologists as a forgery. Please read this regarding the 'Testimonium Flavianum'. It comes from the world's leading authority on Josephus, Louis H. Feldman who has written fifteen books on Josephus and 138 articles on Josephus and Judaism....

"We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it.''

Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

It's talking about Christians and a trouble-making leader who was active in Rome. Your Jesus was never in Rome. It's not your Jesus. It's nothing to do with your Jesus.

Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city."

'Chrestus' is not 'Christ'

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

Pliny talks about 'Christians' that believed in a 'Christ'. That Christians existed at the time of Pliny is not in dispute. It is their leader that is in dispute.

These historians do mention Jesus himself, nice try.

With the exception of Josephus (suspect) and Tacitus...no they don't. Nice try

And they were alive when most of the witnesses of Jesus life still were, so they had plenty of people to fact check from.

Nope! You're wrong again. All they had was second-hand stories about a religious cult. Furthermore, Christianity was virtually unknown in their time, other than an obscure religious cult. It wasn't until the second century that Christianity started to raise it's ugly head, by which time, all your heroes were dead.

There's a reason historical inquiry is left for actual historians and not skeptics online who make excuses to ignore evidence for what they don't like.

Yes...and you would do better to research real historians rather than Christian apologist web-sites.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Well, to begin with, most of us atheists don't deny that there was a Jesus of Nazareth.

I would disagree old chap. Some of us might not deny a 'historical Jesus' but Jesus of Nazareth was that dude that can only be found in the Bible. Besides that, there was no city of Nazareth at the time of the alleged Bible Jesus.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

So you are asserting that the ancient Roman Empire had some vast press corps to record events in the remotest provinces with little impact on Rome itself???

My dear old sprout. If there was one thing that the Romans were good at it was keeping records...even in remote parts of their empire; and besides the Romans, there would have been myriads of other educated people able to read and write that would have put pen to paper having witnessed things like the feeding of thousands with little food, earthquakes that broke open tombs allowing zombies to wander around Jerusalem, unexplained darkness that covered the area and sundry other 'miracles' ...and yet we have nothing, not a sausage.

You do NOT have to believe them but you do need to acknowledge that they were believed at the time ...

We do acknowledge that they were believed at the time but that doeesn't make them true any more than the belief that Mithra was born from a rock was true.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

Josephus: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

The strange grammar indicates the mention of Jesus was a later, accidental addition.

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The word usage and theology is Eusebian, not that of Josephus. Hopper has also shown the grammar is not that of Josephus. There are many reasons for thinking the whole of the TF is a later addition.

Also, no early Christian father quoted Josephus talking about Jesus until the time of Eusebius.

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

The earliest text we have says Chrestians, not Christians. And you can't derive Chrestians from Christus. Also, no one mentioned this passage for centuries, so is a probable later forgery.

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city."

Chrestus, Greek name, and Jesus was allegedly dead when this took place in Rome.

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

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

Doesn't mention any historical facts about Jesus, nor does it tell us who or what this Christ was.

Originally Posted by EricBreaux

These historians do mention Jesus himself, nice try. And they were alive when most of the witnesses of Jesus life still were, so they had plenty of people to fact check from. There's a reason historical inquiry is left for actual historians and not skeptics online who make excuses to ignore evidence for what they don't like.

Perhaps you should refer to actual historians instead of the usual apologists. And no, not one single one of these (with the possible exception of Josephus) would have been alive as an adult when the alleged witnesses were allegedly alive.

And if you don't like the above, no doubt you will just ignore it.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

So you are asserting that the ancient Roman Empire had some vast press corps to record events in the remotest provinces with little impact on Rome itself??? You do NOT have to believe them but you do need to acknowledge that they were believed at the time and were seen as worthy of recording (an odious and tedious task). Applying modern thinking, culture, and zeitgeist to primitive ancient cultures is a sure way to get it wrong.

Originally Posted by Rafius

My dear old sprout. If there was one thing that the Romans were good at it was keeping records...even in remote parts of their empire; and besides the Romans, there would have been myriads of other educated people able to read and write that would have put pen to paper having witnessed things like the feeding of thousands with little food, earthquakes that broke open tombs allowing zombies to wander around Jerusalem, unexplained darkness that covered the area and sundry other 'miracles' ...and yet we have nothing, not a sausage.
We do acknowledge that they were believed at the time but that doesn't make them true any more than the belief that Mithra was born from a rock was true.

What makes the Christian narrative so remarkable is that Jesus was such an itinerant nobody from a remote backwater of the Roman Empire who has impacted and influenced Kings and societies generations and centuries removed from Him. What makes it more remarkable is that there was no discernible historical interest in Him at the time. What you see as invalidating Him, I see as validating Him. The miracles and hyperbolic enhancements seem to trouble you but I see them as typical of mythos.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What makes the Christian narrative so remarkable is that Jesus was such an itinerant nobody from a remote backwater of the Roman Empire who has impacted and influenced Kings and societies generations and centuries removed from Him. What makes it more remarkable is that there was no discernible historical interest in Him at the time. What you see as invalidating Him, I see as validating Him. The miracles and hyperbolic enhancements seem to trouble you but I see them as typical of mythos.

So if today someone knocked on your door in the middle of the Super Bowl and told you that he had been walking in the woods and a burning bush started talking to him, you'd believe him.

If he told you that last week he fed 1,000 people with one pot of fish, you'd believe him.

If he told you that he died ten years ago, but then arose from the dead, you'd believe him.

That is what you are asking "us" to do. And you can't understand why we are TOTALLY skeptical.

(And yes, I know that the burning bush was Moses, not Jesus).

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

So if today someone knocked on your door in the middle of the Super Bowl and told you that he had been walking in the woods and a burning bush started talking to him, you'd believe him.
If he told you that last week he fed 1,000 people with one pot of fish, you'd believe him.
If he told you that he died ten years ago, but then arose from the dead, you'd believe him.
That is what you are asking "us" to do. And you can't understand why we are TOTALLY skeptical.
(And yes, I know that the burning bush was Moses, not Jesus).

Of course not. Hyperbolic language and exaggerations are quite typical of myths. It is the way they emphasized the importance of what is being communicated. Myths are the product of very different mindsets from our modern literate and educated minds. We have very different indices of truth and import.