Do Roman records prove Jesus' existence was a hoax?

[Crazy Anglican]

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So in this one verse, I'm supposed to take seriously the part about "We did not follow cleverly devised stories" as evidence that some people at the time thought Jesus was a myth? But I'm also supposed to reject the part where the author says he was an eyewitness and was there with Jesus at the transfiguration?

Which is where I get my main objection to the mythicist idea, aside from the fact that this idea came out of German historical debate in the 1800's and it was pretty well solved that there was ample evidence for a historical Jesus. When does it stop being myth? Is it that all of the disciples are myths? Then how do we see the spread of Christianity into many parts of the ancient world not only the parts where Paul evangelized?

Thomas was said to go to India. In India you have Christians and an long Christian tradition that says "Yes, Thomas came here and started Christian churches."

Again my apologies for just not taking this idea seriously. I've simply had it too many times with too many people and do not see any new evidence.

[Crazy Anglican]

Okay, so if you’re willing. I’ll take things point by point with whomever would like the champion the mythicist cause.
I mentioned in an off handed way "Hey there are Christians in India who claim the Apostle Okay, so I feel a little guilty for not taking this seriously. If you’re willing. I’ll take things point by point with whomever would like the champion the mythicist cause.
I mentioned in an off handed way "Hey there are Christians in India who claim the Apostle Thomas evangelized their region, just as Christian tradition says he did." Admittedly when Christian tradition (Thomas went to India) lines up with independent material (sources in India saying “Yeah guys, Thomas was here”), my liberal arts education says “Nice! Corroboration is a good thing as it puts a plus beside the credibility of the tradition”. A plus, yes. Proof of veracity, no. So, I was not actually trying offer it as proof of anything, I was merely being flippant.
So, now I find myself with some time on my hands, I and went back to a letter exchange between Trajan and Pliny the Younger. This is, of course, nothing new to either side of the debate. In rereading it thought I noticed something that I had not before, but that echoes the Thomas argument that I offered up flippantly before. In 111AD, Pliny had interrogated Christians who admitted being Christians before “Some twenty-five years earlier” (http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html). Now this is interesting to me because Bithynia bordered the Province of Pergamum. In Pergamum, in the city of Hieropolis, Christian tradition has it that St. Phillip was martyred in 80AD. So, six years and three hundred miles, separate a disciple of Jesus, whose tomb some archaeologists think they’ve found, (https://www.foxnews.com/science/tomb-of ... -in-turkey) and the likely product of that same disciple’s evangelism. That’s a really narrow gap across such a vast span of time. It also seems to line up perfectly with the Christian narrative that Christ (in around 37 AD) sent his disciples out to evangelize the world.
This adds credibility to the Christian narrative of early expansion in my mind, but I understand that it will probably not for many others. What it comes down to is probably mythicist 101 “How do you deal with the problem of eyewitnesses”. Because to me there are three possibilities when it comes to the disciples. They were myths too. They existed but were conspirators, or they existed and were truthful. So, my initial question is how do you deal with the problem of eyewitnesses to Jesus’s resurrection? Are they myths? Are they conspirators?

[flash2015]

IMHO I am missing exactly zero points. Didn't you read why I found the other argument more convincing? Because in the other video the professor identified specific things that were common between John and the Synoptics and explained how those specific things may be true.

Well i thought most Mythicists postulate that John knew synoptics and that is where he got those similarities from.
As i said it is something entirely different to discuss any particulars of Jesus´life and to question his existence as a historical person altogether.

I believe Carrier argues not that there may be only one source for the Gospels but that later sources outside the Church (e.g. Josephus/Tacitus) cannot be seen as independent....so these later sources can't be seen as adding any real evidence of Jesus existence.

This is the same argument you are making here. And at least from my memory it is Bethlehem, not Jerusalem Jesus is supposed to be born in

You are right. Silly mistake from me.

Unfortunately for Carrier the backflips/somersaults that the Gospel writers did to put Jesus in Bethlehem...actually make it more likely that the Nazareth part is true (i.e. if Jesus needs to have been born in Bethlehem why is he not "Jesus of Bethlehem"?). There is no prophesy in the old testament that needs to put Jesus in Nazareth.

Carrier has attacked other mythicists for trying to suggest Nazareth didn't exist (there is a lot of historical evidence that it did). But Carrier relies on others to suggest Nazareth may have started as a title (e.g. the Hebrew word "neser" meaning branch referring back to Isaiah 11:1 or "Nazarites" referring to "separated" or "consecrated ones" which refers back to Numbers 6) which was later converted into a place.

In his book Carrier raises these theories (and others), says they may all be wrong but suggests because it is possible that Nazareth could have been a title that is enough...which is pretty weak.

[flash2015]

@CrazyAnglican, I am not really making the mythicist argument (I really am just interested in it for intellectual curiosity sake)...but I think you are misunderstanding what the mythicist argument is (or you are creating a "strawman" of it to argue against).

I don't know of mythicists claim that the apostles didn't exist. The argument I understand is that the apostles had visions/revelations of Jesus (most likely led by Cephus/Peter)...and that over the span of many decades turned Jesus into a real person (the first Gospel, Mark, was written 30+ years after his death).

So where do you lie on the Bible truth spectrum? At one extreme it is all true (i.e. the fundamentalist position). Then there are the "ring-fence Jesus" ideas (i.e. the rest may be myth but the Jesus miracles are true)...or even a further cut-down ring-fence (i.e. some of the stories may have been made up but the resurrection physically happened). On the other end of the spectrum there is the idea that it is completely allegorical/metaphorical...but it does have historical elements (e.g. Jesus did exist...though Moses didn't). I think when I was a kid I was a "ring-fence Jesus" sort of Christian...to a resurrection was real Christian to it is all metaphor...to losing faith in it entirely after realizing that people interpret what they want out of it (the difference between Australian and US Christianity is very, very stark even within the Catholic Church).

[Crazy Anglican]

@flash2015
nice username btw

@CrazyAnglican, I am not really making the mythicist argument (I really am just interested in it for intellectual curiosity sake)...but I think you are misunderstanding what the mythicist argument is (or you are creating a "strawman" of it to argue against).

It is probable that I am misunderstanding the mythicist argument, but certainly my intent was not to argue against a strawman. It merely seems to me that the strength of the Christian claim is that there are eyewitnesses. The Christian narrative of the spread of Christianity. That is Apostles traveling throughout the known world to preach about this real man Jesus, the miracle of his resurrection, and its implications for the rest of us seems to be a clear claim, and I intended in what amounts to an opening to ask questions rather than provide any argument.
I can understand how my initial flippancy might lead you to believe that I was creating a strawman. I thought I had disavowed everyone of that by acknowledging that I was being tongue-in-cheek about the notion, but I take ownership of the initial tone and assure you that I will take it seriously from this point.

I don't know of mythicists claim that the apostles didn't exist. The argument I understand is that the apostles had visions/revelations of Jesus (most likely led by Cephus/Peter)...and that over the span of many decades turned Jesus into a real person (the first Gospel, Mark, was written 30+ years after his death).

Okay, I see how it looks like I was creating a strawman. I was simply asking the question “Here is what I see as a major strength to the Christian claim (The Apostles as eyewitnesses) and speculated that there were three possible ways to counter it”. In your response you seem to say that the mythicists see the Apostles as real people but have a variation on them being conspirators. Is that a close enough paraphrase of the mythicist claim, or am I misunderstanding it somehow? Please understand when I’m asking questions it is genuine and not rhetorical. I am simply trying to get the idea without watching YouTube. Those guys really do appear to despise one another though.

So where do you lie on the Bible truth spectrum? At one extreme it is all true (i.e. the fundamentalist position). Then there are the "ring-fence Jesus" ideas (i.e. the rest may be myth but the Jesus miracles are true)...or even a further cut-down ring-fence (i.e. some of the stories may have been made up but the resurrection physically happened). On the other end of the spectrum there is the idea that it is completely allegorical/metaphorical...but it does have historical elements (e.g. Jesus did exist...though Moses didn't). I think when I was a kid I was a "ring-fence Jesus" sort of Christian...to a resurrection was real Christian to it is all metaphor...to losing faith in it entirely after realizing that people interpret what they want out of it (the difference between Australian and US Christianity is very, very stark even within the Catholic Church).

Okay fair question with hopefully a fair answer. I don’t really think about it that much. I believe that the Bible is true. Are there obviously metaphoric parts of it? Certainly. I doubt anyone could read the Song of Solomon in any other way. The strength of the Bible (as one of our former members used to say) is in the fact that it was written by many authors, over hundreds of years, for many different purposes. In that respect it is rare among religious scriptures which are generally written by a single author, at one time, and for a single purpose. I read it not with the eye of a skeptic (This happened; that probably didn’t), but instead embracing the challenges it presents and trying to discern the lesson for me within it. I believe it was written for all people of all times. In that way, I don’t feel too worried about eating shellfish, but I can see how an admonition against it was healthy advice at the time. The Old Testament has served as an anchor for the Jews who have survived diasporas, inquisitions, and holocausts while still maintaining their identity when other cultures have slipped away into oblivion. I’d say this probably puts me in between your fundamentalist and “ring fence around Jesus” stances. Perhaps I have a “ring-fence around that which is presented as history” approach?

[Puscherbilbo]

I believe Carrier argues not that there may be only one source for the Gospels but that later sources outside the Church (e.g. Josephus/Tacitus) cannot be seen as independent....so these later sources can't be seen as adding any real evidence of Jesus existence.

If historians claim sources are "independent" from one another they mean that both authors had no knowledge of the others body of work.
It does not mean the authors are "objective" or "neutral oberservers".
So to doubt the independence of Josephus or Tacitus you would have to find evidence that either author knew of the gospel or similar christian literature.
I am unaware of any such claim.
Given the fact that both sources survive only in medieval manusscripts (?) i would assume the argument actually postulates a later interpolation by a christian scribe copying. This makes some sense for Josephus (although this is not the majority position afaik) not so much for Tacitus.
You could also argue that Tacitus is kind of late (very early 2nd century iirc) and the myth had already garnered enough followers.

Methodically you do not prove independence but you try to to prove depence as there is of course no way to prove a negative.

Typical prove would entail:
- Mentioning of the source.
- Direct quotes not being taken from a communal source.

These are the best proves. You also have:
- Shared phrasing/vocabulary.
- Probability. (Given the fact that the bible is so universally read by monks in the early middle ages we can assume knowledge although he does not directly quote from it)

As i suspect Carrier is relying on other works to make his point of the dependence of John (and Paul and Q) on the synoptics (or vice versa) your next step would have to be to check out the scientific literature on these issues.
I assume wikipedia is a viable starting point but there usually are specific scientific databases for this literature.

[Crazy Anglican]

@ Puscherbilbo
Looks like it’s just you and me, I like how you focus on the methodology that Carrier uses. I am more of a rhetoric guy, so my focus is on the claims and evidence presented. So, If you have time, I'd like to hear what you think of the research I was able to do.

Here goes:

With Dr. Carrier, I have noticed that it is very easy to be accused of building a strawman, since he reserves evidence opting to plug his books instead. Here is an example:

There was a pre-Christian Jewish belief in a celestial being actually named ‘Jesus’ who was...

(https://www.richardcarrier.info/Histori ... _Jesus.pdf)
He goes on to cite scripture all of which give little or no evidence that Paul thought Christ was a myth, but assures us that on pages 250-251 of his book there is lots of evidence. I took what was presented and did some digging as best as I could.

I found some of the argument referenced here:
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012 ... mment-3270

Which led me to this

Digging into Philo of Alexandria (30-15 BC to 50 AD) on a very cursory level https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philo-Judaeus , he is known as a proponent of reading some scripture as allegory. He particularly did not see Moses as a mythical figure and saw Judaic law as real and not metaphoric. If he’s pre-Christian it isn’t by much in that he’s a contemporary of Paul (5AD to 64 or 67AD). Still since it’s all metaphor to Dr. Carrier, I can initially see why he likes Philo. Still in 25 pages in Younge’s translation of Philo’s “On Confusion of Language” which Philo seems to intend as an interpretation of selected passages from Genesis, I only saw one line that could reasonably be seen as having anything to do with Carrier’s claim.
In all 25 pages there is no mention of a Pre-Christian belief in an angel or celestial being named Jesus.

“The East,” or “Dawn” (Gen. xi. 2), bears two meanings in Scripture, according as it refers to the dawning of light or of shadow in the soul. It is used in the good sense in the account of Paradise (Gen. ii. 8). So in the oracle of one of Moses' companions (Zech. vi. 12), Behold a man whose name is Dawn or 'Rising'." A most novel title this, if you suppose that a man composed of body and soul is spoken of; but if it be that bodiless man who is identical with the divine image you will confess that the title is most happy (ευθυβολωτατον [Very willing]). For him hath the Father of the universe raised up to be his oldest or first-begotten Son. "East" occurs in a bad sense in the story of Balak the fool and Balaam (Num. xxiii. 76 f.).

The above quote is the only thing I could find that remotely has anything to do with someone named “Jesus”. It is about Joshua bin Jehozadak. This scripture:

Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD.

It simply seems to mean that Joshua bin Jehozadak was from the east (came from Babylon after the Diaspora) and branched out and built the temple. As to him being an angel? Angels are creations of God and are never given lineages (son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah, son of Azariah). As to him being a celestial being (god?), Judaism is pretty strictly monotheistic and there was a real Second Temple. I don’t see any reason to doubt the historical claim that Joshua bin Jehozadak (a real man) oversaw the building of it.

I find it kind of funny that in a 50 slide power-point Dr. Carrier tells me to buy his book 11 times. It is kind of smart to leave the argument incomplete, so that one can easily say “That’s a strawman argument”. Still, I question the validity of the claim if the publications he’s setting out there seem designed only to force purchase of his book.

Anyway, With the digging I had time to do. There seems to be no credible evidence in Philo for a Pre-Christian belief in a celestial being named Jesus. Even if there was, I am not sure how Philo could be seen as representative of any such belief. He was a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria who’s education was largely Platonic and as such was apart from most Jews, rather than representative of them. The idea was certainly tantalizing, but if there is more evidence; I would like to see it. The Scripture that Carrier quotes? I have read it again and really see nothing to suggest that it supports Carrier’s claim on more than a conspiracy theory level.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[flash2015]

@flash2015
nice username btw

I wish I could change it.

@CrazyAnglican, I am not really making the mythicist argument (I really am just interested in it for intellectual curiosity sake)...but I think you are misunderstanding what the mythicist argument is (or you are creating a "strawman" of it to argue against).

It is probable that I am misunderstanding the mythicist argument, but certainly my intent was not to argue against a strawman. It merely seems to me that the strength of the Christian claim is that there are eyewitnesses. The Christian narrative of the spread of Christianity. That is Apostles traveling throughout the known world to preach about this real man Jesus, the miracle of his resurrection, and its implications for the rest of us seems to be a clear claim, and I intended in what amounts to an opening to ask questions rather than provide any argument.
I can understand how my initial flippancy might lead you to believe that I was creating a strawman. I thought I had disavowed everyone of that by acknowledging that I was being tongue-in-cheek about the notion, but I take ownership of the initial tone and assure you that I will take it seriously from this point.

I had a much longer response planned...but perhaps I would never finish it.

Here is the shorter version:

I don't think there is any judgement on the actions of the apostles. I am certainly not making that argument. I currently find value in insight/vipassana meditation in a purely non-spiritual way. But after going on long meditation courses, I have talked about experiences with other people. Many people will claim they had a spiritual experience and for them I believe that that experience may feel real. I am certainly not going to denigrate that sort of experience.

Anyway getting to the issue at hand at least to my knowledge historians like Ehrman will tell you that the resurrection never happened. Tim O'Neill (who also dislikes and disagrees with Carrier and has a website called historyforatheists.com to show when atheists go to far with their historical interpretations) gives a nice summary of the issue here:

https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is- ... m-ONeill-1

Basically, over time, what was initially described as a revelation gradually got bigger and bigger in the telling so that it became "real". At least to my understanding mythicists are just extending the historical understanding of how the resurrection story came into being to Jesus's whole life.

The evidence of eyewitnesses is very weak. The Gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus's death. There is no evidence they were written by the Apostles, even Ehrman will tell you they may not have got their names for another century (i.e. the names of the Gospels don't indicate the relevant Gospels were written by certain Apostles):

https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-the-gos ... eir-names/

[flash2015]

I believe Carrier argues not that there may be only one source for the Gospels but that later sources outside the Church (e.g. Josephus/Tacitus) cannot be seen as independent....so these later sources can't be seen as adding any real evidence of Jesus existence.

If historians claim sources are "independent" from one another they mean that both authors had no knowledge of the others body of work.
It does not mean the authors are "objective" or "neutral oberservers".
So to doubt the independence of Josephus or Tacitus you would have to find evidence that either author knew of the gospel or similar christian literature.
I am unaware of any such claim.
Given the fact that both sources survive only in medieval manusscripts (?) i would assume the argument actually postulates a later interpolation by a christian scribe copying. This makes some sense for Josephus (although this is not the majority position afaik) not so much for Tacitus.
You could also argue that Tacitus is kind of late (very early 2nd century iirc) and the myth had already garnered enough followers.

Methodically you do not prove independence but you try to to prove depence as there is of course no way to prove a negative.

Typical prove would entail:
- Mentioning of the source.
- Direct quotes not being taken from a communal source.

These are the best proves. You also have:
- Shared phrasing/vocabulary.
- Probability. (Given the fact that the bible is so universally read by monks in the early middle ages we can assume knowledge although he does not directly quote from it)

As i suspect Carrier is relying on other works to make his point of the dependence of John (and Paul and Q) on the synoptics (or vice versa) your next step would have to be to check out the scientific literature on these issues.
I assume wikipedia is a viable starting point but there usually are specific scientific databases for this literature.

This sort of argument gets tiring and at some point we will just have to agree to disagree.

Multiple independent sources does not mean there is an element of truth to any of them. We have five different recollections of the resurrection (Paul + the four Gospels). Just because we potentially have multiple Christian sources doesn't mean it actually happened. If we had an independent Roman or other source at the time which could corroborate some of the miraculous events described, then that would make it much harder to dismiss. But we don't.

Perhaps we are splitting hairs here. Again, all I am arguing is that on its own waving hands and saying multiple sources proves little...as we see with the resurrection (likely didn't physically happen) or birth of Jesus stories (if he existed he likely wasn't born in Bethlehem). You have to argue specific scenarios...which I am quite happy to agree may be proof that Jesus existed.

[Crazy Anglican]

@ flash 2015

meh, I like it anyway

Wait a minute? Yet another atheist telling us to what degree we should believe in Jesus Christ? In the interest of time: I'll ignore Ehrman (he neither truly supports nor truly challenges my point). Likewise O'Neill, may not like Carrier but his argument mirrors Carrier's remarkably (at least as I can gather from your summaries of both). Simply put, reading tons of speculation as to why it might be possible that Jesus might not have existed, (especially when the first time I seriously delved into one of them I just happened to find it looked weak). It doesn't really foster any greater desire to put time into looking at yet another conspiracy theorist. In the interest of time I'll look into Carrier's arguments if you want to discuss those.

The problem that I have found with these types of arguments is that it usually consists of:

1) Mythtic makes claim (There was a Pre-Christian belief in an angel named
Jesus) (Thought: Hmm... most angel names end in -ael or-iel, doesn't seem
to fit?)

2) Look into the evidence for the claim
a) Wait? Yeshua bin Jehozadak was just the high priest when the
Second temple was built. How does he become an angel in
anyone's interpretation?
b) Oh okay, Philo of Alexandria was big on allegory.
c) So, how representative of Jewish belief is he? (The
statement at the time. "It's not clear if Philo Platonizes or Plato
Philonizes) lol, I liked this. He seems to be more representative
of Greek philosophy rather than Jewish theology.
d) Schurer states "From his purpose, we can state that Philo was not
a speculative theologian, but was rather a psychologist and
moralist"
e) How is Carrier using his work? Ah, as a speculative theologian,
right.

3)So the original claim is reduced to "There was a philosopher who in his rather long treatise on the Confusion of Tongues made an offhanded reference to how a verse of Zechariah might be taken as allegory."

Which seems kind of weak to me.

Yet it takes a considerable amount of time to look into even a single claim like that. So, maybe we could narrow the argument a bit? please

[Crazy Anglican]

As a bit of a footnote, how I selected this particular claim might be informative:

After the Slide that says in big friendly letters "Why is this [my claim about Jesus] Credible" there are five slides attempting to show how Christianity was just like other religions. I've had the "Well, there are so many religions what makes you think yours is the right one?" argument ad nauseum. At best this shows correlation but not causation, and most of the time not even that. It really cannot of itself prove Jesus did not exist. So, I skipped it.

The next thing I came to, in big friendly letters, was PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA STATES. My assumption being if it comes that early in the list he must place a lot of emphasis on it. That is when the points just ahead amounted to an introduction since it was kind of an obvious rehashing of a very common argument.

So I decided that this might be new material and it was worth looking into Philo and finding out what this is all about.

[Puscherbilbo]

Perhaps we are splitting hairs here. Again, all I am arguing is that on its own waving hands and saying multiple sources proves little...as we see with the resurrection (likely didn't physically happen) or birth of Jesus stories (if he existed he likely wasn't born in Bethlehem). You have to argue specific scenarios...which I am quite happy to agree may be proof that Jesus existed.

Don´t you see the difference here? Nobody is waving hands but there is a scientific methodology applied.
Unless proven/made plausible otherwise we assume something as truthful if it is attested independently. A potential bias of a source does non impinge on an issue if there is independent attestation (the alternative would be to assume that both authors came up with the same idea cf. Bethlehem).

So the gospels are proof that some of the closest followers of Jesus thought he had been resurrected shortly after his crucifixion. Since our surviving sources disagree on quite a few details the rest is usually much more debated or called into question altogether.
But unless you want to argue that it is plausible that multiple authors came up with the idea of ressurection on their own the gospels are proof of a historic origin of this particular believe.

[Fluminator]

Not sure what position Carrier holds here. But if you consider the early Jesus-movement as an expression of Jewish separatism and anti-Rome and could make sense. This would entail the whole apocalyptic movements but goes beyond those.
The persecution of Christians in the early days tends to be exaggerated by christian sources as martyrdom was an ideal at those times.
There were only locally limited persecutions until the 3rd century afaik. And those are a result of a change in the type of government which tried to legitimize the rule of emperors and some christian practices were seen as a challenge to this legitimization.
Overall the orthodox christianity was fairly successful in terms of spread precisely because it was more accomodating towards gentiles and the elite in particular compared to Judaism.
Personally i think modern christianity ows much more to Paul´s teachings than to thoase of the historical Jesus. But that certainly depends which parts of the gospels you accept as historical which is of course hotly debated.

For your concerns i recommend parts 3+4,13,18-20 and 23-24
but i find the whole thing highly enjoyable and informative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1 ... 55C51E75E0.

Sorry if this has already been responded to. This has gotten intimidating to read and catch up.

But with regard to early Christian persecution, there are generally 2 types of persecution Christians faced.
You had the Nero type which was short bursts of Christian persecution. These were generally local to specific locations and had no affect on other places, but they were brutal while they lasted. (Domitian also did some of this probably but it was likely more politically motivated and more targeted the Christians in politics) I believe Severus and Maximinus were other emperors who did this sort of thing.

Then you had Trajan who made it officially illegal to be a Christian, but not to seek them out (and false accusations of calling someone a Christian would result in the accused having the same punishment). This was over the entire empire, so there was always the existential threat that tomorrow a Christian could be rounded up and killed if they didn't repent. (And sacrificing a pinch of incense to the divinity of the empire would result in instant forgiveness by the state.) Leaders of the early church were likely to have shorter lives since they were more obvious Christian and more likely to be reported.

Christians were usually persecuted as a scapegoat when things were going wrong and people thought the "atheist Christians" angered the gods. Marcus Aurelius is probably the most famous of emperors who did this.

You also had some emperors like Philip and Alexander who some people thought were heavily influences by Christians themselves and completely tolerant of them.

It wasn't until mid 3rd century where emperors like Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian essentially tried to actively genocide Christians.

I mainly just wanted to geek out since I'm a huge Roman history buff.

[Fluminator]

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So in this one verse, I'm supposed to take seriously the part about "We did not follow cleverly devised stories" as evidence that some people at the time thought Jesus was a myth? But I'm also supposed to reject the part where the author says he was an eyewitness and was there with Jesus at the transfiguration?

Which is where I get my main objection to the mythicist idea, aside from the fact that this idea came out of German historical debate in the 1800's and it was pretty well solved that there was ample evidence for a historical Jesus. When does it stop being myth? Is it that all of the disciples are myths? Then how do we see the spread of Christianity into many parts of the ancient world not only the parts where Paul evangelized?

Thomas was said to go to India. In India you have Christians and an long Christian tradition that says "Yes, Thomas came here and started Christian churches."

Again my apologies for just not taking this idea seriously. I've simply had it too many times with too many people and do not see any new evidence.

Thomas was always the most inspiring disciple to me. I really don't think he was unreasonable in wanting proof Jesus came from the dead and needed to see it before believing. Not to mention every other disciple doubted before allegedly seeing Jesus alive. Why was he singled out?

A lot of modern churches shame Thomas for doubting before seeing evidence which is the wrong approach to take on the story imo.

It's kind of cool he was the one that went the furthest out of all the disciples in the ancient world.

[BismarckAlive]

Seeing is believing, Fluminator!

[Crazy Anglican]

Thomas was always the most inspiring disciple to me. I really don't think he was unreasonable in wanting proof Jesus came from the dead and needed to see it before believing. Not to mention every other disciple doubted before allegedly seeing Jesus alive. Why was he singled out?

A lot of modern churches shame Thomas for doubting before seeing evidence which is the wrong approach to take on the story imo.

It's kind of cool he was the one that went the furthest out of all the disciples in the ancient world.

I quite liked an apocryphal story about Thomas from India. I'll paraphrase it if you like. Like Jesus Thomas was a carpenter by trade and when he came to India a king commissioned him to build a palace like those in his homeland. Thomas took the money and donated it to the poor. When the king found out what Thomas was doing he was furious and ordered Thomas to be executed. Before the sentence could be carried out the king's brother had a near death experience, upon his recovery he frantically told the king "Don't kill Thomas! He has built you such a palace in Heaven that I would be happy forever if I could live in just one room of it!"

[Puscherbilbo]

@Fluminator: That is basically my understanding too. But lets not derail this discussion any further.

In very broad strokes:

I think one reason Christianity was rather succesful was precisely because the "orthodox" positions did not challenge Roman society all that much and thus could be integrated better than e.g. Jews.

Also later Roman emperors had to rely heavily on the military as a way to gain and maintain power while also appeasing the Roman city elite (senate).
Both groups had issues with Christians. The Christians ususally did not enter military service or declined to fight and the senate elite was amongst the last remaining holdouts of classical philosophy and religion even after Constantine.

So there may have been a rather different rational at work even for these late persecutions.

[brainbomb]

And bumping this for additional illuminati

[Pengwinja]

How many did you make BrainBomb!? You’re going to flood the top threads with Roman records!!

[kingofthepirates]

what is up with all these years old threads suddenly popping back up?! Surely we should allow them to rest, and fade into obscurity... BrainBomb, this is madness!