Very good point. And atheism isn't a religion, it is the lack there of.

Seek and ye shall find.

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).

Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:

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 Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Titus Flavius Josephus was a Jew whose accounts are very controversial among historians. The "respected" part of your statement is primarily a self-proclaimed adjective. Josephus also managed to talk himself out of being executed by the Romans (while apparently 39 of his companions were) and convinced them to allow him citizenship and pay him a pension ... I wonder how he did that? He never said.

And if he really is known for his integrity and moral uprightness, perhaps he is also correct in naming Christians as terrorists and evil?

Let's 'be real' here, and stop the piddly nonsense(directive based upon my personal opinion of questionable motive). You're asking for evidence, reason, or proof of the Bible's veracity, specifically regarding Christianity.(this is a fact that is already in evidence) Figuring out whether or not it makes sense to believe anything at all must make use of reason and critical thinking skills(brute fact).Critical thinking skills are necessary in order to use the facts in evidence to draw reasonable and logical conclusions. The same facts can be used to figure out whether or not it makes sense to believe that Jesus did or did not exist(common sense). However, I think that your mind is already made up(personal opinion). If it is not then please disregard the above opinion and read the following with careful consideration, as I'll soon get to the above question.

First things first... Evidence comes in more than one form. Reason is but one kind of evidence. "Hard" empirical evidence is another kind. Even with "hard" evidence, such as the 'smoking gun', the carpet fibers, hair, etc. we must still use reason to parse things out, to figure it out, to piece things together. So, it is rather obvious that the proper employment of critical reasoning is irrevocable. Now, lets look at some of the facts from which we can safely infer some things which will lead us to an answer to whether or not it makes sense to deny Christianity solely by virtue of denying the very existence of Abraham's lineage. This includes the existence of Jesus himself.

Using the principle of charity, we can say that if Jesus existed(charity), and he spoke/lived as portrayed(charity), then he probably lived in Jerusalem also.(common sense deduction)I mean, why would we deny this if we grant the possibility that he existed. We must charitably grant that possibility in order to offer the most unbiased examination of the forthcoming evidence. Anything less would be disingeuous. Seeing how the allegations that are being levied against the religion involve such blatant dishonesty, we certainly cannot follow suit and remain convincing.

Jerusalem, at that time, was a Roman occupied territory; part of the Eastern Roman Empire(historical fact). Therefore, Romans guards, soldiers, governors, etc., lived there(common sense logical inference supported by written history). If Romans were there, then some most likely knew of Jesus, and others at some time or another probably spoke to him. At the very least, some surely had to have heard him speaking to others, saw him walking around with his followers, etc.(common sense probability)People talk to one another about other people(brute fact). So some of the Romans who had crossed Jesus' path most likely discussed him at one time or another.(common sense probability) Jesus was not of the 'celebrity' status at that time, for he would have still been making a name for himself, so to speak(common sense). There were others like him who talked about religious beliefs(historical fact). Therefore, he - most likely - would not have stood out much(common sense deduction). Therefore, most of the Romans who knew about him, or had come into contact with him, would have no reason to believe that he was anything more than an average poor citizen of the territory who was acting as many did.(conclusion based upon facts and common sense reasoning)

There is an entire religion and all of it's different denominations stemming from, and about a man named Jesus.(empirical fact) There are books - both canonical and not - dating back to within 50 or so years of the time he is claimed to have lived that are all about, and/or based upon him and his life.(empirical fact) There are many books which are not included in the biblical canon, also known as the Gnostics or apocrypha, that tell many of the same stories as the gospels.(empirical fact) All of these books corroborate one another in many ways(empirical fact). They also differ in the content in substantial ways.(empirical fact) They were found in different places, far apart from one another.(historical fact) Many different people claimed to have known him personally(historical fact), and this is recorded within the gospels(empirical fact). There are many who claim that we cannot say for certain whether or not the gospels were authored by the actual followers whose names have been attributed to them(empirical fact). That does not necessarily mean that those books were not authored by the followers(logical truth). Many people obtained writings/books whose authors claimed a personal relationship with Jesus(historical and empirical fact). These have been handed down through the generations with little to no changes in the content of the oldest known examples(empirical fact).

Technology of today did not exist to get info from(empirical fact). Writings and word of mouth, were the only means avaliable.(common sense deduction) Most people of the time could were illiterate(historical fact). Jesus and/or his life story was, and still is, known about in these ways(empirical fact). Keep in mind that that was the only way to be known back then(historical fact). Nevermind the alleged accuracy of the writings as far as the veracity of the portrayed eventsare concerned(miracles and the like). We're looking for evidence and/or reason to believe(or not) that a man named Jesus actually existed.

Since we're questioning whether or not an historical figure actually lived 2000 years ago, we cannot possibly ask for something like overwhelming dna evidence of the entire family, unless we expect the same for all historical figures. That would be unfair bias(double standard) at work. If we deny the existence of Jesus while holding that only "hard" evidence would suffice, then confirmation bias is at work, and we set out an impossible criterion. If we do not ask for the same kind of stringent "hard" evidence in order to believe that other people existed, how could we possibly ask for such from another without being hypocritical? You, Jb, certainly do not hold your own beliefs to such a stringent epistemic criterion. If one seeks with good conscience, then one ought to show some integrity and fairness.

This leads us to a simple question. Given all of this...

What reason is there to doubt that a man named Jesus actually existed?

All doubt is grounded upon some other belief(principle of thought). Doubting X is doubting that X is true(self-evident truth). So perhaps it would be better put like this...

What belief(s) do you hold that offer(s) reasonable ground for doubting the existence of a man named Jesus who has a religion 'named' after him?



Just because some people's accounts may be, are, and/or have been wrong, it does not necessarily follow that all accounts are wrong.(excluded middle) You're conclusion here is fallacious(rules of logic). History itself is nothing but fact. If it happened, it is history, if it did not happen, then it cannot be history(common sense deduction). Recorded 'history' is either true or not, depending upon whether or not it matches up to actual history(correspondecne theory). You have offered no evidence, "hard" or otherwise, to support the claim that everyone who thinks that they have it right, doesn't(empirical fact). I've just offered a valid argument to the contrary(empirical fact). We cannot reasonable say, in good conscience, that all written history is wrong, just because some is/has been(logical deduction).



It is never a good sign when uncontentious facts are being questioned(personal opinion). Go look. Do some homework. Sermons attributed to Paul comprise most of it(empirical fact). Where's your evidence that he did not? Double standard.



Truth is completely determined by the way things are/were(correspondence theory). Truth is a property of a statement which matches up to the way things are/were(correspondence theory). A true statement corresponds to fact/reality(correspondence theory). We cannot know, with absolute certainty, whether or not recorded history matches up to the way things were at that time(comon sense deduction). That's just the way it is... with any historical truth claim. We can only look at the facts in evidence to draw a sensible conclusion(critical thinking).



I'm not sure exactly what "that" is referencing. Everything I've laid out here is common sense as far as I'm concerned, however, I do tend to overestimate people's ability to think critically(personal opinion accompanied by brute fact). I also tend to lose respect for those who hold others' thoughts to an unattainable criterion that they themselves, do not or cannot meet(brute fact).

Let's be real here(a suggestion to be fair and reasonable).



Saul of Tarsus. Yes, it is claimed that he changed his name to Paul and stopped murdering others(historical fact). If I'm not mistaken, his traveling and jailing is recorded in places outside of the Bible. However, I could be mistaken here(pure conjecture).



In order for this first claim to be verified(supported by evidence), or even honestly asserted, we would have to have the Christian doctrine before 300 A.D. and the doctrine after(necessity). Do we have that information available? If not, how can we possibly draw such an unsupported conclusion?

Regarding the second claim...

The Catholic Church gathered, selected, and maintained all the early records, writings, and manuscripts that were available(historical fact). Since there were so many different stories, some of them were obviously not in accordance with the rest of what was held to be true - at the time(common sense deduction). So, it only makes sense to say that in order to do the best job possible at maintaining veracity and authenticity, the various councils compared and contrasted all of the different books and selected the ones that were consistent and coherent with the OT, and the common convention(common sense/charity). This has been recorded and is maintained in the archives(empirical fact). None of this offers any support to the kind of dishonesty that is implied within the allegations you're putting forth(logical deduction).

The Roman Catholic Church did not even exist prior to Jesus/Christianity(historical fact). Therefore, it could not 'take' Christianity and turn it into what it is today(logical/physical impossibility). Besides that, to hold that Christianity today is a result of the beginnings of the RCC is to not even consider all of the events between 300 A.D. and today that have had an effect on Christianity(critical thinking). The Protestant Reformation has had more of an effect on today's Christianity than the formation of the RCC could ever possibly have(historical/empirical facts). Western(American) culture has had more effect on today's Christianity than the RCC(empirical fact).



Some people believe that the earth is flat too. Does that mean that we should use their belief to bolster our own prejudice?

No educated and disciplined historian that I know(whether religious or not) believes that the NT was written at that time. Parts of it, specifically, Revelations are dated that new, but all relatively unbiased historians/biblical scholars(you know, the ones that you say you want) date the gospels as early as 50 years after Jesus' death. Paul died around 70 A.D. If he wrote most of the NT(charity), then it could not have been written 200 to 300 years after Jesus' death(physical/logical impossibility).

By the way, Paul was executed by the Romans(historical fact).



There is no such a thing as being "exactly Christianity"(common sense). Even today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of different versions. Jesus Christ and 'his' story was and still is the centerpiece of them all(historical/empirical fact). Your objection here is hollow(personal opinion regarding the lack of ground).



No. Christianity is not the RCC(empirical fact). Do some research(suggestion).



If it is the quantity of different documentation from different people that satisfies being adequate evidence to you...

You'll lose your battle.



Jesus is taught in history classes as well. He is quite clearly the cornerstone of Christianity.



So, you only hold this stringent sort of evidencial criterion to the Abrahamic religions of the world? Do you not see how hypocritical that seems?

You got it bro. You have this guy up here trying to stir things up but he's not even in the religious hate section he's in the religious section. Interesting misstep in directions I would say.

Sorry gentlemen, I meant to say that the Abrahamic religions don't work. Personally I felt that should have been clear from the context of the post.

Cowboy knows very well that I'm not an atheist so he's basically spreading lies to even insinuate that I might be.

The Catholic Church gathered, selected, and maintained all the early records, writings, and manuscripts that were available(historical fact). Since there were so many different stories, some of them were obviously not in accordance with the rest of what was held to be true - at the time(common sense deduction). So, it only makes sense to say that in order to do the best job possible at maintaining veracity and authenticity, the various councils compared and contrasted all of the different books and selected the ones that were consistent and coherent with the OT, and the common convention(common sense/charity). This has been recorded and is maintained in the archives(empirical fact). None of this offers any support to the kind of dishonesty that is implied within the allegations you're putting forth(logical deduction).

None of this offers any support to the kind of dishonesty that is implied within the allegations you're putting forth(logical deduction).

Cowboy wrote:

Not spreading any hatred. The definition of atheism is believing in no God(s). There is but one God, if this someone doesn't believe in this god, does that not make them atheism? And besides that, again you very rarely express your spiritual beliefs. You mostly only deny the Christian faith, outside of that you don't express to much of your spiritual beliefs. Thus, the only conclusion one may take is atheism. A little suggestion for you abra to help in these discussions. When you deny something, you should very well then fill it in with the truth as you see it. Not just deny one's beliefs and leave it at that. You're not here to do much "discussing" just denying of the Christian faith.

Very good point. And atheism isn't a religion, it is the lack there of.

There is but one God, if this someone doesn't believe in this god, does that not make them atheism?

Abra:

Come on Michael get real.

Jeannie isn't claiming to hold the infallible verbatim "Word of God" and demanding that everyone who refuses to accept is it "denying God".

So her personal beliefs do not need to meet the same criteria that she is demanding from people who DO CLAIM to hold the "Word of God".

Outrageous claims should require outrageous criteria.

Besides, all she's asking is for someone to give compelling evidence that the characters mentioned in the Bible actually existed.

If they can't even do that, then why should they expect anyone to believe the rumors about the people who they can't even show had even existed in the first place?

They were carefully designing the biggest fiction in the history of the world and in such a way so it will "seem consistent" with their current doctrines, and you say that they were not being dishonest?

Forget rational thinking and truth. People, I guess, are not ready for that. They were not ready then and apparently they are not ready even today.

Rome fell because of its over-all cruel and inhuman treatment of people. They were the "evil empire" of that time. They fell as all "evil" empires are meant to fall.

To embrace a religion spawned by the evil likes of the Roman Empire is ..... in my view, ignorant.

That is why I demand evidence today before I conclude that their doctrines and books are anything more than pure fiction, contrived with agenda and motive.

Jb and I were talking about whether or not it makes any sense to deny Jesus' very existence. The claim was that if David and Abraham can be refuted/falsified then the entire religion and all of it's afteraffects should be dismissed as though it is a house of cards. That is quite simply not the case.

I can surmise plenty of opinion regarding that particular line of thinking, but suffice it to say that it does not match up to how the facts that are in evidence can be agreed upon and put to the most reasonable, logical, dependable, empathic, moral, and practical good use.

What is all that rhetoric above?

...reasonable, logical, dependable, empathic, moral and practical good use? What a bunch of blah blah blah.

What a gigantic amount of over thinking and rationalizing.

Where's your evidence that the Council members existed? Where's the evidence of their motive? Where's the reason to believe that hey were being dishonest?

You prefer unreasonable, illogical, inconsiderate, immoral, and impractical?

What reason does anyone have to listen to anything else that you have to say?

You prefer unreasonable, illogical, inconsiderate, immoral, and impractical?

I've got one Jb.

What would constitute adequate evidence for a truth claim?