If Jesus was not even crucified, don't you think the Romans would have said something about it? Something like, um, "hey guys I know you think you're forming a new religion that will rock the empire to its core and all, but he didn't even actually die on that cross". Nope, nowhere is this said.

The Romans went to great lengths to squelch early Christianity. This would have been something they would have loved to say, and we would have lots of material saying exactly this sort of thing.

Also I never said the tomb is a historical fact. I said there are no good explanations for the empty tomb historically. And there aren't.

And anyways I'd just like to say your info is wrong.

Tacitus says this in 64 ad:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . 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 . . . 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. . . .

And I don't doubt that parts of that section of Josephus were edited by a Christian. Josephus would probably never say what is there, but even the reference to Jesus at all is substantial. It doesn't help for the crucifixion historicity but at least the historical reality of Jesus at all is much more probably with his account.

Putin,

You mention detailed Roman records. Could you supply a link to a list of Pilate's court records and all of the criminals punished?

"If Jesus was not even crucified, don't you think the Romans would have said something about it?"

Considering there is no Roman record of Jesus even existing, no.

"The Romans went to great lengths to squelch early Christianity."

There was no centralized campaign to stamp out Christianity that any historians. To the extent to which there were persecutions, they were of a local kind. If they went to such great lengths where are the laws against Christianity?

http://books.google.com/books?id=MNSyT_PuYVMC&q=below#v=snippet&q=below&f=false

"Tacitus says this in 64 ad:"

Tacitus refers to Jesus as "Christ". Why would any Roman writer do that? Also that passage is not quoted by any of the early Christian writers, including those who were very familiar with Tactitus like Tertullian. Further, there were no 'vast multitudes' of Christians by 64 AD, nor does Tacitus mention this supposedly large movement in any of his other writings.

"Also I never said the tomb is a historical fact. I said there are no good explanations for the empty tomb historically."

Considering there is no record of the tomb historically, why should we concern ourselves with 'historical explanations' of it being empty? And at any rate, I can think of at least one perfectly plausible historical explanation - reburial, if we're to believe that a Sanhedrin buried Jesus. It was the law to bury convicted criminals in a criminals graveyard. Are we to believe a religious Jew and member of the Sanhedrin didn't abide by the law?

Why wouldn't Tacitus use the term "Christus" it isn't as if the author is attempting to attribute divinity to the figure. That would be completely opposite of the tone of the nation excerpt. Aside from that all you have is the Christian writers not quoting passage in which their movement is characterized as a "mischevious serstition" and its origin as "evil".

no big mystery there.

So once Tacitus has mentioned it he doesn't see the need to do so again.

That's hardly evidence of a conspiracy.

Existing Roman records aren't that easy to come by, is your strategy really no more than claiming there is no evidence and then claiming a conspiracy when evidence is given?

A person who does good deeds is just that a good person. A person who does miracles is a person who has power to do things normal men could not. So would we think of Jesus the same if he did not do anything spectacular, probably not.

I liked the explanation given by GrKing that it is up for humanity to discover the universe and the Bible is the guide to figuring out how to go about doing that in a morally correct fashion.

As it was written by other people that are trying to explain the world it is not exactly correct but perhaps that is a lesson unto itself that we are always learning new things about life and the world we live in.

" Could you supply a link to a list of Pilate's court records and all of the criminals punished?"

No, but Rome kept meticulous court records. Took frequent census. We know very exact data on Roman military battles and movements. We know precise data on Roman prices. We have records of crucifixions in, for instance, the Servile War.

"is your strategy really no more than claiming there is no evidence and then claiming a conspiracy when evidence is given"

It's not my 'strategy', Christians have been notorious interpolaters and forgers. Historians themselves have confirmed these things. I see you haven't bothered to refute the Josephus forgery claim, because it's cited in the Cambridge History of Ancient Rome.

"Why wouldn't Tacitus use the term "Christus""

Because Romans would have referred to him by his actual name, not a title.

No, but Rome kept meticulous court records.

Why not? It seems like a very big hole in your argument that you assert meticulous record keeping on the part of the Romans, but refuse to show is any evidence of these records. Of the absence of Jesus' name on these records is to be of any importance, surely we should be able to see these records?


And a Roman would call him Christus if he did not know his name. One of the things that the Romans didn't like about Christianity was it's secrecy. It isn't as if Jesus of Nazareth was a household name at the time.

Can you give me one name of one person crucified in Judea under Pilate? That at least would be a start.

I'll help:

Yehohanan son of hankgol


But his name isn't known through Roman records, but through an inscription on his estuary.

Ossary

@ Putin

" I see you haven't bothered to refute the Josephus forgery claim"

I honestly haven't looked at it. It would be a waste of time since your basic premise is flawed. If you cannot produce the records of names of crucified victims in
Judea, then the name of Jesus not appearing on a list that doesn't exists signifies nothing at all and cannot be used as evidence of anything.

"I honestly haven't looked at it. It would be a waste of time since your basic premise is flawed."

What is my basic premise?

You claimed that Josephus and Tacitus were 'evidence given' and that I was simply being dismissive of it. It was part of my 'strategy', remember? Now, when I ask you to refute the charge against Josephus, you tell me you haven't bothered to look into it. But yet you call it evidence with no problem. Interesting. You haven't looked into it, but it's self-evidently evidence, and my 'conspiracy' charges are ridiculous. Very interesting.

" If you cannot produce the records of names of crucified victims in
Judea, then the name of Jesus not appearing on a list that doesn't exists signifies nothing at all and cannot be used as evidence of anything."
The basic premise is that there is no historical evidence for any of these claims Christians are making but Bartdog claimed that the religion was based on historical evidence. That there is nothing written about this supposedly famous person and his supposedly famous execution among the most meticulous record keepers of the ancient world at the very least raises serious doubts about your religion being based on anything historical.

@semck
1) I believe that Jesus' miracles risk undermining his authority, because he becomes a figure we cannot emulate. If Jesus had limited his actions to that what is physically accessible to mortals, wouldn't he have become a more powerful role model?

2) Well, the story of the Creation comes to mind. I understand that the story is symbolic, I just ask myself why it wasn't written as a symbolic story? It seems like a pretty serious account of what happened at the beginning of mankind.

"Christianity has never claimed to be anything but a religion based on things that have happened in history."

Haha, shit. You for real son? Usually i keep my mouth shut and just mute these threads but man, that russled my jimmys.
The christian sect was one among many end time cults in a region ripe with civil war and strife, claimed but not totally controlled by the roman empire. It is not hard to see why those cults would emerge in such a setting and neither to see their appeal to the conquered population, not only in this region, but for the whole of the roman empire. Their single most important invention was that theirs was a monotheistic faith which in turn brought them in conflict with the romans. Not because the romans were not extremely accepting of half civilized babarians having their own pantheon, but because pretty much the only thing the romans demanded of the conquered lands spiritually was that they pay at least lip service to the roman emperor as a god. From there on out the history can be more or less be pieced together by fragmentary records and archeological digs. A history by the way, that paints the christian faith in a rather dark light.
None of the christian storys however that lay before that point can be scientifically proven, nor can the supposed miracles. So your claim is either ill informed or willfully misleading and wrong.

This debate has already been raging for two millennia, and will probably continue for another two, at least! I'm an ex-believer, and it is clear to me that Christianity was formed on unnatural selection. The discovery of the gnostic gospels proved that it was men in power who decided what was included in the Bible, at their own fancy - not God. Christianity is therefore a man-made religion. MAN MADE GOD - not the other way way round.

To say that all things written in the Bible must be true BECAUSE they are in the Bible takes away the human nature of the people who wrote it. Humans lie, humans exaggerate, humans idealize and fantasize. Humans seek for truths by putting forward theories before they prove them. The foundations of Christianity all seem to come down to "you can't prove it to be false, whereas if it's right, then God the omnipotent could definitely have done everything that the Bible says." There is huge irony in taking the Bible as testament.

Christianity definitely gives humans a strong sense of ethics, which makes it a healthy guideline for life, but if God existed he surely would've chosen to reveal Himself to the world in an epoch when humans could scientifically record and prove Jesus's miracles, rather than creating the old adage of "Well, if you don't believe, you are simply not worthy." If He existed, He would WANT us to believe.

And finally, what gives a Christian's view of Jesus as the son of God greater validity than the Muslim's view of Jesus as simply a prophet?

As if God Himself knew... a friend of mine just posted this on Facebook, which I find entirely relevant:

"I don't think it matters if there is a god or not. I've met people who believe in God who are good and who are bad. And I've met people who don't believe in God who are good and who are bad. So just be good. I'm good. Not cos I think I'll go to heaven, but because when I do something bad I feel bad. And when I do something good I feel good."

And to sum up, here's my two-pence worth: People should not be ridiculed/berated because of what they believe. People should just live their lives and live together in harmony. This is undoubtedly Jesus' message, and the ultimate intention of the people who wrote his story.

@cjl78
"not to be an archaeology-Nazi, but, uh, Jesus was Iron Age"

True, but the myths about him aren't. The Bible just plagiarised earlier Egyptian mythology. For instance, the Egyptians had a myth about Horus.

Horus was born of a virgin.

Horus' birth was accomppanied by three deities following a star in the east and bearing gifts.

Horus' birth was announced by angles.

Horus had 12 disciples.

Horus performed miracles such as walking on water, healing the sick. Horus raised is father Osiris from the grave (Lazarus being just the romanized name El-Asar for Osiris).

Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu (Bethany = Bet Anu = house of Anu)

Horus was crucified and resurrected 3 days later. His resuurection was announced byt three women.

Horus was given the title KRST (anointed one)

Sounds familiar? So, yeah, if you don't mind I will keep referring to it as Bronze Age myths. The fact that an Iron Age sect re-attributed them to their leader doesn't change where they came from.



@Tolstoy
"How do you know what is and what is not "supernatural"? Even 200 years ago, a Defibrillator would be considered "magic" (or sorcery!) that brought the dead back to life. Just imagine a doctor from the year 2300 AD going back in time to 29AD with a small bag of tricks - I bet he could pull off most (or all) of Jesus' "miracles"."

Supernatural is that which doesn't fit with the laws of nature. Your example just supports my position that the supernatural is a cop-out explanation that people use when they don't understand stuff. Just because something seems magic doesn't mean it is. And no, a 2300 AD doctor could not pull off most (or all) of Jesus' miracles. He might be able to fake a few of them in ilusionist style.



@bartdogg
"You have said these events absolutely 100% did NOT happen. No matter what. They are impossible."

You know what else is not absolutely 100% impossible? That you cast a die a googleplex times in a row and it lands on 6 each time. I feel very confident rounding that chance off to 100% impossible, which for all practical intents and purposes it is.

It's funny though, how you take some random Bronze Age myth for truth and require me to prove with 100% certainty that it is false. You're the one making an absurd claim. You should be proving that it is true.

"You're starting with an assertion that miracles cannot happen. This is a faith step."

It's not a faith step at all. It's based on observation rather than faith.


@Draugnar
"Oscar is in, maybe 9th grade, and thinks he knows everything even more than Putin. I mean, at least Putin has a masters (no real life yet, but better than being 14)."

Yeah, I have a masters degree. How is this relevant? (And yes I realize you're trolling, so skip your little victory dance over me responding. I don't mind feeding trolls. I do so deliberately.)


@Darth Baum
"I liked the explanation given by GrKing that it is up for humanity to discover the universe and the Bible is the guide to figuring out how to go about doing that in a morally correct fashion."


Why on earth would you consider the Bible the guide to figuring this out? You might just as well say that ancient Greek mythology is the guide to figuring it out? Hey, here's a suggestion: let's use observation and reason to figure things out. They've proven themselves much more useful than bronze age myths.


@Rainbow Candy
"Christianity definitely gives humans a strong sense of ethics, which makes it a healthy guideline for life"

If you consider sexism and homophobia ethical, then yes sure. I don't though.

Real reasons why miracles are performed in the bible.

1/ wedding was very boring and Victoria wine had already closed.
2/ 10,000 hungry people and very few fish sandwiches
3/ Lazarus had forgotten to file his tax return.

Necessity breeds miracles.

"Horus had 12 disciples.."

@oscarjd74, have you been watching the documentary Zeitgeist by any chance. Apparent some of the claims in that film were bunkum. Turns most of the stuff about Horus was made up nonsense.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

oscar: "I guess you just take that stuff for granted on the authority of a book of Bronze Age philosophy."

i'm agnostic. i'm just pointing out how flawed your argument is.

@red - What you are reading is a translation done by OT literalists. The Hebrew is in a style the Israelites reserved for allegory and other stories. It isn't until you get past Noah that the writing style shifts to historical recording.

I'll jsut respond to a few things briefly:

@Partysane, you say: "None of the christian storys however that lay before that point can be scientifically proven, nor can the supposed miracles. So your claim is either ill informed or willfully misleading and wrong."

This is just don't get. You can't scientifically prove Alexander the Great existed either. He can't be put in a lab and manipulated. My point is that Christianity began and continues to perpetually point back to something Christians believe actually happened in history 2000 years ago. The crux of whether or not to believe in Christianity should probably, at least in some part, be about whether or not those events actually happened. I'm not sure how your comment even addressed my statement at all.

Rainbow says this, and I'd use it as an example: "And finally, what gives a Christian's view of Jesus as the son of God greater validity than the Muslim's view of Jesus as simply a prophet?"

The difference for Christians is that Jesus' claims as the Son of God carry more weight in light of an event that happened historically -- the resurrection. Anyone can say anything they want about anything, of course, but when it's backed up historically it assuredly carries more weight.

Then Rainbow says: "And to sum up, here's my two-pence worth: People should not be ridiculed/berated because of what they believe. People should just live their lives and live together in harmony. This is undoubtedly Jesus' message, and the ultimate intention of the people who wrote his story."

Really? So if I believe in flying airplanes into buildings or raping women to better myself or my eternal destiny I should just be ridiculed or berated for what I believe?

Oscar, about the Horus stuff, I just don't even know what to say. It's hard to argue with Bill Maher. His historical credibility and status among academics is just top-notch. Religulous totally changed my life.
Just look into it a bit. That stuff is a stretch for anyone even remotely resembling objectivity.

Then you said: "It's funny though, how you take some random Bronze Age myth for truth and require me to prove with 100% certainty that it is false. You're the one making an absurd claim. You should be proving that it is true."

First, the resurrection was not a bronze age myth, it was an event that the early Christians believed actually happened. My comment above was to say that there are no good explanations historically for the empty tomb. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm saying offer plausible historical arguments.
I'll suffice to say you cannot. If you could, you would be published and Christianity would fall on its hinges. The church globally would be in destruction. Thus far you have pointed to some spotty at best Egyptian stories and claimed that Christians ripped them off. Then you have claimed any reference to Jesus at all by Roman historians has been forged, all the while you have completely ignored the best historical sources themselves, the new testament gospels. This argument is pointless if your starting point is to say:
1. All mentions of Jesus by Romans were forged because Christians rewrote whatever they wanted.
2. The gospel accounts are ridiculous because they actually claim the things themselves.
3. You don't even need to try and find a plausible historical explanation for the rise of the Christian church and the resurrection because it was clearly copied and ripped off.

Bart - you certainly prove one thing - that this debate cannot be summed up by any single absolute... I suppose, other than, "different people are entitled to different opinions." But then you would question whether Muslims are entitled to the opinion that death/war in the name of Allah is justified... so yeh, I return again to "this debate cannot be summed up by any single absolute."

However, you want a plausible argument for the empty tomb? How about: the disciples, wanting to preserve Jesus' imagery as a deity, removed Jesus' body from the tomb (heavy stone in front of it, I know, but there were 11 of them, you know... Judas having topped himself, so the story goes...) and buried him somewhere else so as to create the illusion that he had magically disappeared. What's implausible about this? Sacrilegious, you might say, offensive or blasphemous even, but entirely plausible...

And I don't expect, to get published or for Christianity to fall on its hinges as a result of me making this postulation - hell the religion would've been dead as soon as Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion if ANYONE could cause the global destruction of the Church. The fact is, because people want to believe in Christianity as a meaning/purpose for life - and who could blame them: it's happiness all round - it will likely continue to be a major secular faith for millennia to come.

@Rainbow Candy

"How about: the disciples, wanting to preserve Jesus' imagery as a deity, removed Jesus' body from the tomb (heavy stone in front of it, I know, but there were 11 of them, you know"

And how do you explain 11 fishermen, tax collectors, etc. managed to get by a squad of trained Roman guards? And if they did manage to do that, how do you explain that they were perfectly willing to die excruciating deaths in defense of that happening. It is a psychological impossibility to resist the worst tortures imaginable and still keep that lie. Your theory would have way more back up if any Christian EVER admitted to it being a hoax. Sure, some of them apostatized, and repudiated. But they NEVER admitted to it being a hoax.

...because anyone who "admitted" Christianity were a hoax would be branded "not a Christian"... As for details of how the disciples got past the guards to Jesus' tomb... Who ever said the tomb was guarded?? Oh yeh - that's right - your "proof beyond all proofs" book: The "Testament". And so we come full circle again...

And at that point, I cease my argument, or I will send myself dizzy.

Opium of the people