Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive19

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Victoria

Cosmikdebris DIDN'T remove anything - I find it somewhat rude that you are claiming he did when he didn't in fact do that. He moved your new critique of the article to the bottom of this page, because you are breaking the entire formatting of the current talk page and making it borderline unreadable. We are happy that you disagree with us and brought sources, but please format your critique properly. Use the "add topic" option in the top right corner next time. And be sure to sign your comments with 4 ~ so we know it's you. Also, please don't use the <ref> tag on talkpages (It will make your links hover near the bottom forever.) Peace. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

New topic

Caiphus the jewish priest responsible for Jesus death according to the bibles body and grave have also been found. [The Ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas, K. C. Hanson's HomePage][ CNN Wire Staff (2011-06-30). "Israeli authorities: 2,000-year-old burial box is the real deal". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/29/israel.ancient.burial/index.html?iref=allsearch Retrieved 2011-08-26.] − − Pontus Piltae name have also been found on ancient ampfie theater from year 27-36 ad. The Roman governor responsible for Jesus death. ["The Pilate Inscription". K.C. Hanson. 10 August 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2017. https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/latin/pilate.html]

Archeological evidence is irrelevant.... This website really support a fringe academic theory and refuses too publish evidence that completly contradict scientific evidence. An irrational skepticism to an absurd degree. Just because Jesus existed it does not mean he was god. You skepticism is not constructive. It just a logn meaningless hate text against christians. Communism murdered millions of christians. Isis murdered thousands of christians. North Korea steals the organs of christians. I do not see why Jesus existence have been disproven. Moronic theories are presented as facts and Bart D Ehrmans evidence is completly disregarded. That describe JEsus as an apocalyptic doomspreacher. Your just support an revisionist type of history. This is evidence that completly disproves your garbage take on history. My brain hurts after finding two easy sources that completly disproves 95 percent of this articles ultra skeptical narrative. I wanna find the real none mythical JEsus that did not do any miracles and was Jewish preacher and how his followers distorted the true Jesus. Not some BS claims that could easily be disproven when you google the Wikipedia page. Making fun of christians belief in the resurection. This is just borderline disrespectful when we have actual archeologcial evidence that disproves 98-95 percent of this article that support Jesus myth theory. That does not mean Jesus walked on water. But is not this website built on scientific methods that do not disregard archeological evidence? "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."

Eddy, Paul Rhodes; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-3114-4.

With intresting arguments like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health_of_Jesus#Opinions_defending_the_sanity_of_Jesus Instead of regarding Jesus as a mythical character.

Also, denial of Jesus Christ is used by various communist states today such as North Korea and Cuba to jail and murder them. Lenin banned describing Jesus as a real person. The reason for this was that it became easier to murder priests by using that argument. Today christians in North Korea are getting murdered and their organs donated to science. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/north-korea/ I'm an atheist or agnostic. But answeer legitimate criticism please.

But I see according to polls religion seem to be bad for economic growth https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-development

But there are exceptions for, for example, Ireland, Singapore and the USA having high economic growth and high religiosity. But it is very negative that the main reason for this is an unnatural fear of hell. It is the main reason people go to church. But religion according, to data, is bad for economic growth and that it is motivated by fear of hell is very bad. But you also have countries such as Vietnam, China and North Korea being very atheist and still very oppressive. Religion motivated by fear of hell is incredibly irrational. We still have pretty good archaeological sources for Jesus existence. Off course if god existed. He would leave alot more material to prove Jesus existence. We would see magical lightning trees and a divine picture of Jesus face on the ground lightning by magic. Because god would not leave us two pieces of evidence and then leave in a hurry. Nothing to prove Jesus walking on the water. Nothing except a bunch of incoherent paper pages which anyone could write. God would give us alot more evidence. Sadly there exist no afterlife and Jesus is likely a true person that got crucified after revolting. Like million of other jews and pagans at the time. But hey he at least existed. Then later his followers tried to make sense of his death and invented a new mythology that largely went against the message in the Torah about a Messiah. Then his followers started to advocate Jesus being divine after three generation of gross exagerations by a doomsday preacher. What we are left with that is probably historical accurate about Jesus is him being nailed down on the cross in agony. Goind around preaching jewish seperatism and claiming to be the divine next king of Israel and Messiah probably did not make the Romans happy. They were trying to keep order in place. Not a madman ranting about being the next king of Israel and Messiah with a growing amount of followers telling the final days are soon coming. Tacitus imply this was the reason Jesus was crucified. For breaking up the order in Roman controlled Judea that experienced several violent uprising lead by Jewish leaders. Judea therefore had an high amount of crucifictions of politicall dissidents in general for preventing the jews from having an independent state. For crucifiction is never mentioned in the Torah. It was the most common way Romans executed politicall prisoners. Over one million people are estimated to have been crucified during the Roman era. The Roman rule there was very brutal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

Over one million Jews were killed and many were crucified 66-70 ad after the Jewish rebellion. One Jesus being crucified was nothing out of the ordinary. Jesus was the sixth most common name in ancient Judea. Being a virgin birth was a common literary invention for the time Julius Ceasar, Augustus and Alexander the great all were born from "virgins". That does not mean they are made up. Exactly like Jesus is not made up.

[Дождикова, Надежда (2009). "Чем был недоволен Берлиоз? О романе М. А. Булгакова "Мастер и Маргарита" и "проблеме Христа"". Нева (in Russian) (7). ISSN 0130-741X. Retrieved 2019-05-11.]^{— Unsigned, by: VictoriaJohansen / talk / contribs}

I understand that you're very interested in this topic, but rather than posting a text wall, might it not be better to engage in an actual discussion? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If you persist in spamming text walls you will be reverted as you would be no different than a bot. Please engage in actual dialog. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's start by establishing a premise. What is your point of contention with the article? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I will add that much of what was being added was daughter-ed out ages ago.

For example, Pontius Pilate has his own page which points out "Some apologists, arguing against the Jesus myth theory, either state or try to imply that people at one time thought that Pontius Pilate didn't exist. In reality, no evidence could be found of anyone having ever stated that Pontius Pilate didn't exist."

"This website really support a fringe academic theory and refuses too publish evidence that completly contradict scientific evidence." It is stated twice the article is not about the Jesus/Christ Myths (which has included concepts of a historical Jesus) but about the evidence and its quality. To put it on a see spot see spot run level — Christ myth theory is definition' Jesus myth theory is arguments(...as nonsensical on both sides as they may be.)

I would like to point out that we have more evidence right now for John Frum and Ned Lud than for Jesus and yet there existence as clearly definable historical historical people (in the Jesus myth theory article because it was repetitious in this article) we are not sure they really existed as described by their followers. Heck, Sun Tzu who was documented by actual court historians and whose work The Art of War you can hold a translation of in your hands, may have not existed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Still does Caiaphas existing is strong evidence for Jesus execution. This website does not even mentions this and removed that archeological evidence. Then also Alexander the great could have been a myth of serveral greek warlord as the first sources mentioning him directly are from after his death. Or the accounts are from his life but no Documents survives from hos life that mentions him. It does not sound crafty to think alot of great deeds he did was made up after death. Still if we apply the same level of standard för Alexander and Jesus both probably existed. Also archeologist proved Nazareth existed and found Jesus house. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:801:235:71f9:e85e:2661:cb02:750e / talk / contribs}

As Carrier apparently seem to sexually harass girls at his seminars . I doubt this Carrier have more than this popularity in mind. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/09/06/americas-leading-atheist-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-speaks-out/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:801:235:71f9:e85e:2661:cb02:750e / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Carrier's personal (mis)conduct is not relevant to the evidence for or against a historical Jesus, which again, is not being contested here per se. As for this archeological evidence for "Jesus' house", I would like to see some more information on that. Beyond that, I'd also like to point out my example of the Trojan war in an earlier thread to point out the difference between proving a place, proving a person, and proving the supernatural. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Jesus house" claim is based on the assertions of a scientist named Ken Dark at the University of Reading and is just a claim, a conjecture, etc. No serious academic works make any reference to this; only a number of clickbait articles. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay but BBC claimed it was legit. They defnietly did not say we had super good proof. But with the sources mentioned old Byzantine documents and being built upon an old church. Within Nazareth seems like a good legit guess. It is not like 100 percent proof. But rather pretty likely. If an 1800 century British document says Shakespear lived in this house in Snitterfield. We could at least find some credibility in the claim. We would not outright deny it but neither completly confirm it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233 ^{— Unsigned, by: 83.227.82.108 / talk}

"He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century. However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s." At best, the Byzantine-era begun in 330, by which time the idea that "Nazarene" refereed to a town rather than a sect was well established.

Regarding the comparison of Jesus to Alexander, Jesus myth theory states (which citations:

"Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE)[344]: official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus were all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Additionally there are known contemporary accounts that survive: Isocrates, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Dinarchus, Theocritus, Theophrastus, and Menander. And on top of all that there are the contemporary inscriptions and coins."

The only known possible contemporary is Paul as the Gospels are anonymous works written sometime before c 180 CE and have gross historical and geographical errors. To claim Jesus is on an equal footing to Alexander the Great is just parroting the nonsense by the over zealous pro historical Jesus crowd that says what ever pops in their mind without making sure it actually makes sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare was born 1564 ad and 1864 ad british documents being Discovered Documenting his Birthplace. Most People first reaction would not be go distrust it. If archeologicam evidence proves it to be built in the time of Jesus or Shakespear. Rather Most scientist would Believe the information to be true.

This is the same 300 years later. After Jesus death. There are very few houses in Nazareth and in the bible Jesus was a very common name. So People in Israel Said Jesus of Nazareth reffering to the very small villages he came from. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2A00:801:235:71F9:E85E:2661:CB02:750E / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I did a little digging. The Sisters of Nazareth Convent was founded in 1855 and the Byzantine Empire existed from c 395 CE to c 1453. Even if we accept the Church of the Nutrition with its vague ~600 CE date that still puts us some 400 years after Against Heresies (c. 180 CE) which with his Demonstrations clearly puts Jesus crucifixion no earlier than 42 CE using the Gospels as his source material. So Professor Ken Dark's claim as presented by the BBC is effectively useless as it is too vague.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but my point concerning Alexander was that no surviving documents from his time survived. Rather it is copied made aproximately 200-300 years after his death exactly like the earliest surviving fragments of the New testament.

But they refer to works made by historians during Alexanders lifetime. But in reality most surviving sources are copies from 200 ad. Five hundred years after his death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great ^{— Unsigned, by: 83.227.82.108 / talk / contribs}

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Four things 1. wikipedia itself recognizes that it is not a reliable source, 2. The source that states there are surviving contemporary accounts was peer reviewed. 3. You are ignoring the contemporary inscriptions and coins, and 4. as Cosmikdebris says sign your blasted posts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC),

Yes, but my point is the main sources for Alexander are several centuries younger than Alexanders life. Also, the coins are not directly extensive literary sources for Alexanders life. Gordian Knot myth for example do not sound very historical. That does not mean Alexander is made up.

It is very mythical. Also, we have better sources for Alexander the greats existence but still not his grave. Still, we do not have the graves of alexanders enemies. But your correct that Alexanders life have more evidence than Jesus. But Jesus was a commoner not a king. For example Tacitus, Josephus or any other commoner. Or worse the fact is Jesus is probably one of the best documented jews from the first century. We have undeniabale evidence for Caiphas existence the Jewish high priest responsible for Jesus death. But this webbpage does not try to be remotely objective. So I refrain from commenting this incredibly skeptical article. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC) This wiki does not claim to be objective. This is just a bad biased source. You ridicule religion. I get it. I should probably add my sources to the real wiki instead.

The best source of information for Hannibal Barcas life is written 100 years after his death.

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-the-punic-wars/

http://hannibal-barca-carthage.blogspot.com/p/sources.html VictoriaJohansen (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

But,it I dislike Carrier for sexual assult allegations. Also, Most schlager do takes his viewpoint seriously real as there are pretty much archeological evidence for the guy. 2A00:801:235:71F9:E85E:2661:CB02:750E (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hannibal Barcas there are sources - the (admittedly) fragmentary direct quotes of Quintus Fabius Pictor's lost works and Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BCE) both of which are clear contermpories

"But Jesus was a commoner not a king". So were nearly all the other would messiahs mentioned by Josephus (see and a host of holy men on his page) and yet they get far more detail and fleshing out than Jesus does. Heck, Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody" gets a paragraph nearly four times longer then that for Jesus and that is before you eliminate what it is said the apologists say was added by Christians to the passage.

The "much archeological evidence for the guy" claim is total nonsense. Go read Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought (either edition) for how archeology actually works. The dating methods are just not fine enough to back up the claims being made. Never mind the historical Jesus (it is Humpty Dumpty time as what is actually meant by that) supporters are totally inconsistent on their methods ie saying Mark's content suggests it was written close to when the Temple fell and yet ignoring the internal evidence of Clement I which clearly puts it being written before 70 CE and putting in c96 CE.

To use a real world fictional history, Birth of a Nation (1915), just because there was an Abraham Lincoln and a Civil War doens't mean there was a Representative Austin Stoneman and yet a historian (which Wilson was) supposedly said "It's like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true." If there was no Representative Austin Stoneman than it can't have all been true. Q.E.D.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter writtes he meet Jesus brother James. 54 ad in his letter. Just because he got a majority of All visions about fictional Jesus in heaven and all that. BUuuuuT He meet Jesus Actual brother in is letter dates to 54-44 Ad. Your wrong in timescales. Your illogical to Claim. Why would christians invent their leader dying on he cross. 20 years after? It is humiliating and reserved for the worst of offenders . No Christian would make that death up. If he was a divine sky angel. Why did he die as a the worst criminal of the time. No similarities with dreaming birth of a nation a bunch racist hatepropaganda. Also, Birth of a nation never mentions Freaking Abraham Lincoln as a pro slavery supporter. Your point is invalid. The Birth of a nation all persons involved are fictional. The New testament mentions Augustus, Caiphus Pontus, Paul the apostel. WE have letter written 20 years after. Talking about James brother of Jesus. Also, Lincoln would be comparabale with the New testament mentioning Augustus not Caiphas. 2A00:801:235:71F9:E85E:2661:CB02:750E (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"The Birth of a nation all persons involved are fictional." and "Lincoln would be comparabale with the New testament mentioning Augustus not Caiphas" are not only contractility but false. At around the 1:17:53 mark Lincoln and Representative Austin Stoneman meet face to face making Lincoln in this fiction directly involved.

As for for the Brother James reference even some apologists think it is a gloss note accidentally inserted into the main text - largely because even in the Greek the passage is clumsy and grammatically awkward.

ΑΔΕΛΦΟΝ is a weird word in the Greek. It can mean biological brother but it can also mean "having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ." - Greek Bible

Never mind John Frum had Prince Phillip as a brother even though Prince Phillip only had sisters and certainly didn't visit the island in the 1910s (when a native via letter mentioned the John Frum concept first appeared) nor the 1940s (when three natives took up that name).--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: By nature, this is a "armchair quarterback" take and not a scholarly one.)

One of the things I find interesting about the differences between the RW Jesus historicity articles and the Wikipedia ones is how they draw a bit different "perspectives" and conclusions, yet the data set is kind of similar (the RW stance is a little "skeptic heavy" IMHO, but to be expected given the atheist bias I suppose). My understanding is that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ probably existed. This, however, as I understand it, is because the little bit we have -- and it isn't great to be honest, as it lacks a verified primary contemporaneous source -- is a little more than one would expect from a random Jewish preacher from a relatively poor area of Israel. There are very few things which are well documented about Jesus Christ outside the Christian myth. But the issue is, very few things from that era are well documented, period. So while this seems to make scholars lean in the direction of "real person", at the same time the evidence is not solid enough to discount a *wide* range of "possibility", from Jesus existed to Jesus didn't exist to, well, he existed, but was quite a bit different than told. And there's not much one can do but rely on what little we have. (If you had to ask, I'd side with the scholars that say he existed. I just don't know how much Jesus' religious vision got embellished in the 40ish years to the first Gospel or even the 20ish to Paul's letters. For an example, just compare American folklore figures with the historical records. Despite much better known history, there's still a lot of fiction and tall tales.)

Whatever the state Jesus ends up as, my understanding is that the historicity of Paul the Apostle is on a fair bit better ground. Even though it is still not easy to see what a Paul the Apostle was like in real life, as sources outside Christian text on Paul are nonexistent, someone had to have written those letters (the scholarly consensus seems to be at least six or seven are "authentic Paul"). As Paul's letters are separated a mere couple decades from Jesus's death, you can at least get an idea of the early church musings at this point. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As Paul of Tarsus#Evidence for Paul shows the whole idea that Paul was fictional is nonsensical. As for Jesus existing, as New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall points out there is a range on how Jesus existed - all the way from celestial creation that others used his name to preach to everything in the Gospels is historical accurate. Marshall felt that ether end was nonsense. Though John Frum shows that the first is far more likely than Marshall thought was the case. Unlike Jesus we have a document (Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177), by professionals, at a time closer to John Frum than Paul is to Jesus by nearly a factor of three and it shows total confusion as to what John Frum actually was.

Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously.

If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war. and the splinter Prince Philip movement which has Prince Philip as John Frum's brother...even though Prince Philip only had sisters.

John Frum is the poster child of how the Jesus was originally a celestial being and yet still have people calling themselves "Jesus" as there are clues in Paul's own account regarding Aretas and Damascus when crossed referenced with other sources that indicate that the event with the basket could have happened as early as 24 CE (though a range of 28-33 CE is more likely)

Perhaps a better question would how Jesus existed and how how close is the Gospel account to any possible candidates up to when they were written?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Most things like walking on water and making wine OUT of water being Virgin born are probably later edition according to all scholars. Some or the Most skeptical scholars Only accept His crussifiction and his mum being Mary and father Joseph and his baptism by John the Baptist. Other scholars says that if we removed the supernatural elements of the New testament we get the real Jesus. For example Jesus preacher about peace and treating others with respect. För example Jesus making alot of fish could be an oral exageration of a successful fishing trip.

1 OUT of five humans sees their loved Ones after their death especially a religous leader. Being Marias visions as in ger Dreams and then later exagerate her visions to be real. Then put of 17 People 4 followers had visions. Also, Most Think he died on the cross. Also, due to great uncertainties Bart D Ehrman believe only some passages are true and only Jesus being crucified and baptized by John can determined to be true.Being the son of Joseph and Mary and being a carpenter son and preacher. While others hold that some level of historical truth could be deduced from the new testament. Like Jeanne D Arc probably never saw an angel but she did exist. Or alot of other saints with embellished deaths from the medieval era.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/hallucinations-of-loss-visions-of-grief VictoriaJohansen (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also a new execavation proves without reasonabale doubt that Caiaphas the Jewish high priest had a wife and a kid. He also named his son Yoshua or Jesus. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/29/israel.ancient.burial/index.html?iref=allsearch ^{— Unsigned, by: VictoriaJohansen / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Again look at John Frum as to why that isn't evidence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

John frum is a person with no direct persons involved in John Frums execution life have been discovered in John Frums life like Caiaphas. Bad comparison... I would not say with 100 percent probability Jesus existed but there is a very large chance he did. We do not have that good of evidence for Tacitus and Aristoteles. Do we have the grave and body of any of Aristoteles enemies or any of Homers enemies? VictoriaJohansen (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 12:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@VictoriaJohansen Could you provide peer reviewed evidence of the supposed discovery of a grave attributed to Jesus? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270534409_The_Caiaphas_Family https://books.google.se/books?id=TRGpNmDmfxAC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false :::https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/14/world/tomb-may-hold-the-bones-of-priest-who-judged-jesus.html VictoriaJohansen (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2064920,00.html

So happy your sources all this points to the grave being authentic. Nobody have been able to disprove it is Caiaphas ossuary. You can claim Jesus did not live off course. There will always be people that deny evolution that the earth is flat or that the moon landing is a fraud. This is the reason no New testament scholars take Carrier seriously. A man lived named Jesus big deal. You can not take that just to ridicule christians. I get that this site is basically built for that reason. So I'm not going to delete anything. We have more proof for evolution. But you can not except things that happend 2000 years ago with 90 percent illiterate jews and romans will be as well recorded.

But Carrier dislikes Christianity as he built his case for that Hitler never criticized Jesus. Just because he intensely dislike Christians. Hitler said some bad things about Christians such as "

"Hitler expected the end of the disease of Christianity to come about by itself once the falsehoods were self-evident. During the war he reflected that in the long run 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'."

Even thou Hitler disliked atheism. He was not a christian in the end of his life. Even thou he said very positve things about Jesus in the start of his presidency.He later disproved of both christianity and atheism but did not leave for tactical reasons.

"National Socialism was by its very nature hostile to Christianity and the Christian churches [...] Conflict was inevitable [...] Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by a complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion tailored to fit the needs of National Socialist policy. This radically anti-Christian position is most significantly presented in Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century...generally regarded after Mein Kampf as the most authoritative statement of National Socialist ideology. [...] Thus in a declaration of 5 November 1934, Baldur von Schirach, the German youth leader declared... 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement'. Considerations of expediency made it impossible, however to adopt this radical anti-Christian policy officially. Thus the policy actually adopted was to reduce the influence of the Christian churches as far as possible through use of every available means, without provoking the difficulties of an open war of extermination."

It becomes pretty obvious they planned to replace it with Neopagan beliefs or a radically different type of religion. Carrier have a very anti-christian agenda. ::::VictoriaJohansen (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@VictoriaJohansen Why the fuck are you veering off into personal attacks and a screed about Hitler? You made a claim regarding a supposed historical site, and since you hadn't supplied citations I was asking for said citations. What the actual fuck? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Meh because you attacked Bart D Ehrman or somebody did for being a former christian. Which made him less "believable" than Carrier that have been very skeptical against christianity concerning atheism before he wrote his book. If your an academic your own personal background should not matter.VictoriaJohansen (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If you could cool the fuck off, that would be nice. I didn't attack Ehrman. All I did was ask for a citation. If you're just going to engage with everyone as if they're the same person, I think you should brace yourself for a very cold reception. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Did not care to write who wrote that comment sorry. Sorry if it makes you that mad and sad. Why swear in such an emotional way? I should use Reddit or something. Can you please remove my edits? The real Wikipedia already acknowledges it is a fringe theory. You are allowed to have that theory and I hope it does not get removed. But I really really really get why it is a fringe opinion. After just reading about the subject for 10 hours or something like that.

But please do not remove it the fringe theory of mythicism is very good to have against the fundamentalist claiming he resurrected completly and was god. It is a very very fringe idea to have. Probably good for balance to have an incredibly anti-jesus theory somewhere to balance out all faith coming from christians. I know Hitler also, used the crucifixion of Jesus as a tool for hating the jews. It is a diversified stance with some top ranking nazis being christians some being atheist and some being neopagans. But claiming Hitler was pro-christian is a stretch. Even thou he disliked atheism. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@VictoriaJohansen "Sorry. Did not care to write who wrote that comment sorry. Sorry if it makes you that mad and sad. Why swear in such an emotional way?" I swear because I feel like swearing. I swear when I'm happy, frustrated, sad, etc. Freedom of expression and all that. As for why I swore here, it was to express annoyance at you for acting in such a childish way. To the comment about "The real wikipedia..., we do not claim to be Wikipedia. We do not claim to be an encyclopedia. We do not claim to be neutral. Etc etc etc. As for the debate, beyond indicator my view that there was likely some form of historical "Jesus", I have only attempted to curb errors in your argumentation, nothing more. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah here, lads. The broken English and the non sequiturs should make it clear that interaction is futile. The only thing to be had here is a headache trying to decipher what the fudge is being said. Just stop responding. (Or not, whatever like. Tis' a free wiki after all, founded in Canada on American values). G'night. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

They found the body of a man that was crucified and allowed to be buried. Which suggest the way Jesus body was buried is not unique according to the new testament. At least one person from the time in ancient Israel were buried in similar fashion to Jesus description in the bible. Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/ VictoriaJohansen VictoriaJohansen (

Cheers always look on the bright side of life ^^. Even when you get crucified by the roman authorities for coming with new religous ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M&t=33s VictoriaJohansen (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Nobody have been able to disprove it is Caiaphas ossuary." That is not how things work. David Kusche ranked this position over the coals with regards to the Bermuda Triangle: "Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid and if they have left anything out."

To put this on as much a see Spot see Spot run level as possible: Prince Phillip/Tom Beatty is to John Frum what Caiaphas/Herod/Tiberius/Pontius Pilate is to Jesus - a non sequitur. That the first existed doesn't mean the second existed. In Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes a casualty list of the Second Boer War shows that there was a John Watson wounded. By the logic you are using that proves Sherlock Holmes, a known fictional character, existed.

I strongly suspect that the Jesus of the NT is a composite character - formed out of several would be messiahs written to conform to Paul's vision. For example, the Egyptian who "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer." might have been a component for Matthew. Similarly, Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE) has a large correlation to the Passover section of "Mark". Such a Jesus would not be historical even though he was composed out of historical people.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

So that is comparable with finding a 2000-year-old tomb with the name Caiaphas with the remains of a 60-year-old man in ancient Israel. Having an incredibly decorated chest only reserved for elite priests or high nobility/kings?

But his death sounds very likely and his burial after the crucifixion in a reliable good way. Jews of the first centuries were allowed to take their bodies of the dead. Until he resurrects. Then it becomes fiction. Haha, no Sherlock Holmes is not a historical person. Do we have the grave of the guy that killed Sherlock Holmes? But yes a lot of the stuff could have been said by other persons and put together to one person Jesus. While his followers maybe said 50 per cent of all the quotes attributed to him. But overall are there any magical associations with people executed with crosses before Christianity began? I do not think so. It was the worse sort of punishment reserved for criminals. Doubt somebody would glorify the electric chair and have the electric chair as their religious symbol.

VictoriaJohansen (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC) VictoriaJohansen (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Caiaphas existing at the time of Jesus' supposed crucifixion, like Pontius Pilate, has never been in doubt so all this harping on a 2,000 bone box's discovery is just blowing smoke. Certainly if Caiaphas had been involved in Jesus' burial Josephus would have noted such a major event in the Testimonium Flavianum (assuming any of that thing is genuine) or at least in Antiquities of the Jews 18.33–35. But this event appears in neither. Which suggests it never happened as actual history remembers the unusual.

This is the problem with Jesus being supposedly connected to such major historical players as Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Caiaphas, and even John the Baptist. If such tight connections existed someone outside the Christian community should have noticed without being told by the Christians.

Heck, neither Mark (70-80 CE) or Luke (80-130 CE) (generally regarded as the best of the Gospel accounts) even mention Caiaphas; he only appears in the highly questionable Matthew (80-90) and John (90–110) and there is nothing that really connects Joseph of Arimathea to Caiaphas other than wishful thinking. Of course these dates show another lapse in logic by the Pro-Historical Jesus crowd; if John is the last Gospel written and it post dates Luke by 10 years than it should have a (90–140) range not the (90–110) generally given.

Caiaphas feels like King Richard I in the Robin Hood stories - a known historical person added to bolster vague remembering of what, at the end of the day, might have been a minor person. Heck, we have actual court 1226 documents of a Robert Hod becoming outlaw. That doesn't mean he is the source of the Robin Hood who supposedly bedeviled King John especially given King John died in 1216.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But the first description of Robin Hood does not even sound that fictional. Rather he is portrayed as a savage brute that loved to steal stuff and murder people. Later authors during the 1800 ad and 1700 ad 500 years later started to shape up a Robin Hood more similar to the one we know today that steals from the rich and gives to the poor. In the beginning, he was a brutal robber that people liked because the guy had humor not because he was moral in any way. The guy never gave cash to poor people and took all money for himself. Also, most of them are written 300-200 years after his death. Except one written 100 years after his death. 19:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: VictoriaJohansen / talk / contribs}

It would not be strange if a Robin Hood that loved to tell witty jokes but also slaughtered anybody that went into his forrest existed thou. . Guy comes to Barnesdale to capture Robin Hood, but Robin kills and beheads him. The guy is first referred to extensively 400 years after his supposed life. Jesus lived 80-100 year after the first extensive written documents were written. Much more likely to have existed than Robin Hood. Ancient peoples also loved to exaggerate accounts of the real-life person and invent miracles to make them more divine. For example Björn Ironside a Viking chieftain that ravaged the Italian mainland had superpowers and were impossible to kill. Just take any saint in the Catholic church most of the guys described did exist. Just that their supposed miracles probably were invented after their deaths. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that a lot of the common plot elements of Robin Hood that you are referring to are based off of Howard Pyle's "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" right? A series of stories written hundreds of years after the period you are attempting to make claims about. This extremely bad historiography. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

At least with Robin Hood you have a maybe within the time of King John and some of the oldest stories of Robin Hood have him in the time of a "King Henry" which, using King Henry III (1216-1272) matches perfectly with the Robert Hod of 1226. In fact in 1440, the Scottish chronicler Walter Bower said that Robin Hood and Little John were famous murderers that supported Montfort and set their activities in 1266, after Montfort's defeat. By that time variants of "Robert Hod" were all over the place so it is within possibility but that doesn't mean Walter Bower was correct as there are loads of other possible candidates. Terry Jones in "Outlaw" of his Medieval Lives book/series tells us about the Folville, Chegulton, Middleton, Leyborn, and Coterel gangs that were running amok. In fact, during this period England was one of the most crime ridden countries thanks to all these gentry becoming career criminals. Forget about robbing the poor to give to the rich. This was the rich stealing from about everybody to make themselves richer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)¨

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mshRaY8gTs I like to think there was a Robin Hood but there are not even a good comparsion since Robin Hood essentially did not have the full story 200 years after his death after Richard the Lionheart. In the first stories Robin Hood have a great deal of respect for women but is still a selfish man that steals and murders when it fits his intrest. Not like Jesus when you have the first documents/tales from 50-80 AD. The story of Robin Hood took 500 years to become the coherent story we know today. Jesus is a 200 years more likely to have existed somewhat close to the gospels just with the miracles removed. For example Zeus, Thor or Odin never had real life followers dated to a real era. Robin Hood likely existed but the first accounts 1377 200 after his lifes gives us a robber not the hero that loves the poor and puts them above his own self intrests all the time. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Chrestus is the latin term of Messiah so putting it in the text is a strawman. Christians is only the latin or Roman term for Messiah and an early inscription does nothing to prove Christianity were some kind of sect developed without a leader. The man in question could be a Roman convert to Judaism reffering to the Messiah in latin. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if we found the grave of Sheriff of Nottingham I would be much more trusting of the idea that Robin Hood existed. But we do not have that with Robin. The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. "Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. I am leading a rebellion, said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

Then everyone deserted him and fled. 51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,

He fled naked, leaving his garment behind. "

This sounds so real it is like a chaotic mess after Jesus getting seized for Blasphemy and I believe with 99 per cent probability that this is true. Christian would not make up such an awkward scene. Doubt other parts in this section but this does sound incredibly mundane the son of god arrested by a bunch of Jewish priests and Roman soldiers. Also, this sounds like Mark actually does mention Caiaphas. It says Jewish high priest or in other words Caiaphas.VictoriaJohansen (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I find this mythist position similar to a fundamentalist Christian claiming Jesus was the son of god. It is not strange to suggest the gospels contains some level of historical truth. Especially miracle-working priests are still a thing today and many people believe they have been healed. Especially in 1800 years before mainstream health science and the placebo effect became a studied phenomenon. Claiming a faith healing doomsday preaching cult leader that had parties and got crucified does not sound unbelievable for me. We have 100 different religious sects rising all the time. They are almost always lead by a charismatic religious leader. You found 2 sects founded by a mythical person but we have Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Konfucianism, all were founded up by real persons. That were later mythologized after their deaths. Buddha saw a demon, Muhammed and Joseph Smith saw "angels" Ron L Hubbard told us about the impending invasion by lord Xenu. Rasputin proves sometimes sectleaders have a very high resitance to death. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing#Evangelicalism ^{— Unsigned, by: VictoriaJohansen / talk / contribs} VictoriaJohansen (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Chrestus is the latin term of Messiah"? Untrue. It is a common slave name meaning good or useful. Chrestus has as much connection to Christus as Chief and Chef in English do ie none at all other than similar spelling. We have no idea who founded the beliefs of Zeus, Osiris, or many other pagan gods. The fact there appears to be a pagan group called Chrestians (the good men) before Jesus and that Chrestus may have been another name for the pagan god Serapis. John Frum in another example fo a movement whose actual founder has been lost - within living memory--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Or they spelled Messiah wrong in Latin. The language in old texts did have varied spelling. Claiming that they had standard english with complete spelling in ancient times is very wrong. I think there is a very large chance it is a latin spelling of the Messiah movements or christians that existed during the time period. Chef and chief meant the same thing in old french so technically yes they both originally meant the exact same things. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the "they spelled Messiah wrong in Latin" claim is we don't know that as we know that believers weren't above making "corrections". Never mind that as the article points out Chrestus makes for more sense from a gentile point of view then Christus does. As for Chef and chief meaning the same thing...not exactly. They were borrowed from French centuries appart. It is like the word "gay" being used in a 19th century context opposed to it being used in a late 20th to present context.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The Emperor Hadrian wrote that worshipers of Serapis called themselves Christians. The letter identifying Christians with Serapis-worshipers was supposedly written in AD 134, but the document from which the letter comes, the Historia Augusta has been shown to be a forgery dating to AD 395. Hadrian did not write the letter, and the whole argument is a sham. The good men document you mentions seem to have been forged by Roman pagans into making Jesus into a pagan god but this over 400 years after Jesus life. The documents that mentions this connection were forged 400 ad by Roman pagans fearing persecution. Therefore making Jesus into a Roman god in order to preserve freedom of faith so they could continue to worship Zeus and Apollo. The document have proven to be a forgery and accepted as such by literally all scholars it was falesly written 135 on the document to make it appear as it was genuine. Just to prevent persecution of Roman pagans and make Jesus less real. IT stands on the wikipage. Virtually the entire document have been proven to have been forged by Roman pagans and is filled with gigantic amounts of historical errors concerning Roman emperors. If this is the case the evidence Jesus mythicist have is incredibly bad.VictoriaJohansen (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta

This only demonstrated you have either not read the article or understood it. The section under Chrestus/Christus points out the Emperor Hadria letter is on very iffy ground but it also says "First, early Christian authorities like Tertullian went to great pains in explaining that Christian and Chrestian were two different words with entirely different meanings and were not variants of each other[1], a claim supported by the evidence.[2][3] So right out of the gate the premise that the two words are variants has to ignore what the people of the time (including ironically the followers of Jesus) of the time were saying and writing."

Also is is kind of hard to keep misspell "Christian" as "Chrestian" when you have "Christ" a few sentences back. "Third, Epiphanius in Panarion 29 (4th century CE) expressly states "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called Jessaeans for a time. In fact, there is a inscription dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE.[4] "

As for wikipedia. even ir states "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" " Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong"--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay wikipedia could be a fraud. Then I could use both Harvard and Oxford then both saying Hisotria Augusta is an incoherent mess written by a bunch Roman pagan frauds. Oxford university have this to say about the source "inherent contradiction in the claims of authorship, " Harvard university have this to say about the Christ mythers favourite text " It contains much that is plagiarism and even downright forgery." https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674991552 ¨ Great sources I think. I think Harvard and Oxford are respectable sources but I don't know I could be wrong. Also the moon landing frauders have similar theories. Why could not thoose men at Nasa just send a rocket with a radio transmitter. Then claim it was humans on the moon while it was a radio sender sent a pre recorded movie from the moon and all astronauts that took part in the moon landing lied to beat the Soviets. But I agree that Jesus mythers have more valied criticism as we do not have videos only archeological evidence and written sources. The problem in both is that both assumes there are some grand conspiracy to cover up the real evidence. Also, the moon landing astronauts seen going into the rocket could have dropped together with a parachute and other parts of the launch rockets to make it appear like the rocket collapsed. Captured by the American government together with the debrief in the ocean. The only rocket that went to the moon were an unmanned drone sending radio signals back to Earth.

But then again is is for a much nobler cause. Christianity is a cancer and it needs to eradicated. It's filth is deep ingrained in some homophobic republicans so lying and inventing fictional stuff is preferbale than recognizing that Jesus probably existed. Since evolution theory is truth then Jesus can not be truth. I understand the eradication of christianity is more important than telling the truth. Or like conservative christian anti christian atheist with a deep seated hatred against Republicans in America need to push a fringe theory to preserve their anti theist beliefs. Even thou Jesus have more evidence than Vercingetorix and Boudicca do not have the same level of proof. First texts about Boudicca is dated to 100 year after Boudiccas death. Is that not very similar to Creationism? I mean a physical Jesus that got crucified not water into whine Jesus or walking on water. Just a preacher and faith healer like the thousands that still exist today. You now another historical person that very deified and worshipped as the highest god for over 300 years in Egypt? Alexander the great had a massive cult and alot of Alexanders followers thought he was Zeus son and a divine god. The Alexander cult survived several hundred years and many kept worshipping him as the highest Greek god. The Alexander cult stopped when the Romans took after as they discouraged it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

https://spartacus-educational.com/ROMboudicca.htm

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674991552 VictoriaJohansen (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What in the blazes was that rambling nonsense? This deny Jesus = effort to destroy/discredit Christianity idea is just another in the long list of ad hominem efforts to distract from the fact that the evidence for a Jesus remotely similar to the one described in the NT is so questionable as to be basically nil. The wild schisming of Christianity, as documented in Against Heresies (c 180CE) is something not seen with other religions where the founder is a definitively historical person. Heck, even Paul himself mentioned schisming in 2 Corinthians 11:4 (c 56 CE).

There is one piece of information in Joseph Wheless' largely incoherent and tin foil hatty Forgery in Christianity: "This authority also lists the famous Protevangetium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, that of Gamaliel, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, also According to the Egyptians; of the Nazarenes; Gospels of St. Peter, of St. Philip, of St. Thomas, of St. Bartholomew, of St. Andrew, of Barnabas, of Thaddeus, even notable forged Gospels of Judas Iscariot, and of Mother Eve; also the Gospel by Jesus Christ."

Not Gospel of Jesus Christ but Gospel by Jesus Christ ie a Gospel supposedly written by Jesus himself. Sadly Wheless is so busy banging on his everything was forged drum that is all you get on that gospel.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As Alexander the great himself viewed himself as the highest god. Egyptians and especially Cleopatras dynasty worshipped him as the highest god. Alexanders life is so mythical that many tales about him as so affected by this religion centered around him that historians do not know what is true or not about Alexanders childhood. Alexander himself was convinced he was a god and that he would enter Olympia upon his death. The religion that percieved Alexanders as Zeus son spread wide among conquered peoples and soon a majority worshipped him as Zeus son. Jews even thought Alexanders was the Messiah during this cult around Alexander. "Not even to me does it seem possible that he turned out to be unlike any other human being, without divine intervention." The religion became the dominant majority religion in Egypt and many worshipped Alexander the great as the only god. So yes I think the cult of Jesus could be similar to Alexander the great. A great speaker ethicist Jesus teached values of peace and tolerance and humanism and impending doom later after his death got deified in a similar way to Alexander the great had been before the Roman conquest. For Egyptians Alexander had been the most important god for over 500 years. The Alexander cult like the catholic church had a chief priest working as Alexander the great on earth. Cleopatra Julius Ceasars lover created the first female priesthood for Alexander. Alexanders name became the same as god and Alexander the great was worshipped as the only god. Deus was not longer used in Egypt and the Middle East as Alexander meant god. VictoriaJohansen (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_cult_of_Alexander_the_Great https://www.worldhistory.org/article/925/alexander-the-great-as-a-god/ VictoriaJohansen (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I was being clumpsy sorry :( VictoriaJohansen (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point our per RationalWiki:Community Standards one should not delete large sections of the talk page as they are community property. It can be archived and even moved around but not deleted especially if it contains other user comments.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Evidence quality

It is not so much "wikipedia could be a fraud" but its quality is iffy at best. More over information is so sparse that historians use Hisotria Augusta as documented by Ernst Breisach of Chicago University Press so the entire thing isn't throw out as a forgery. As someone who has a degree in archeology I can tell you a lot of what is claimed regarding evidence regarding a Jesus that remotely resembles the gosele is way beyond the limits of the field. Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought (also by Cambridge University Press) documents that Middle Eastern archeology went from Culture-Historical Archaeology, to Early Functional-Processual Archaeology stopping at Processualism and Postprocessualism while the field elsewhere moved to Pragmatic Synthesis - "Archaeological interpretations consciously and unconsciously (it is often impossible to determine which) echo current concerns. (...) Current understandings of ideologies, such as Marxism, neoconservatism, and nationalism, also color interpretations of the past. Like everything else in modern society, these biased understandings are growing more varied, complex, and individualized and are changing more rapidly than ever before." (2e pg 484)

As for "conspiracy to cover up the real evidence" that is another smoke screen as Piltdown Man and Vulcan show. With Piltdown Man as early as 1913 it was stated that Piltdown Man's skull was in reality consisted of an ape mandible and human skull something repeated in 1915. In 1923 a claim of outright fraud was made by Franz Weidenreich . But noooo it had to be genuine because it fit with the theory of the time (brain developed first) and the consensus (which I might add included Cambridge University Press) was it was genuine. No conspiracy needed just a willingness not to examine the actual evidence in an objective manner.

Vulcan was "discovered" by Le Verrier in 1859 and based on the fact the method he had used had found Neptune in 1846 it was accepted that there was a planet there even though efforts to confirm it were at best spotty with a "confirmation" in 1878 with efforts continuing clear up to Einstein's paper in 1915 which effectively threw out Newton and the need for a planet between Mercury and the Sun. No conspiracy needed just a model of the universe that was incorrect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Diversification of sources regarding non-Biblical evidence

Looking specifically at the "Silence and censorship" section and its list of ancient authors who did not (but ought to) mention Jesus, I'm getting the distinct impression that, while a few other sources are cited, the structure of that list and the arguments made therein more or less come from Carrier alone. (I suppose the author of this particular article could have originally generated those assertions as well, but that's not the sense I'm getting.) I find this problematic in terms of the quality of said list's argument given that it consists specifically of discussions of the works of classical authors, since, y'know, Classics is an entire independent field of study (full disclosure: I'm partway through a Classics degree myself) with considerations and contexts distinct from other historical fields, and Richard Carrier is not a classicist. (I would have a similar problem with such a list compiled solely by a Biblical scholar or theologian.)

In particular, I find the implication that it's suspicious that particular works or sections of works have been lost because if they had talked about Jesus, Christian monks would have preserved them to be, frankly, laughable. To me it indicates a fundamental ignorance of just how many Ancient Roman texts that we know about have been lost, including ones which other authors praised effusively. For any given topic you care to research in Roman texts, you will get an awful lot of "well, we know this used to exist, but all we have left is the title..." It is not suspicious, it does not indicate an agenda on anybody's part; it's just what happens to handwritten texts over a period of 2,000 years. The section would be much improved by adding commentary from a classicist source, or at the very least other non-classicist sources, instead of uncritically parroting one layman's opinion. (The second list of classical authors, in the subsequent "Non-Biblical evidence" section, may suffer from similar issues, given that most of its citations regarding classical texts appear to be to non-Classics journals, but because it does have a greater variety of sources, it doesn't bother me as much.)

That being said, anyone have any insights on the section I'm talking about or any potential sources to add? Esoteric24 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Carrier is cited so much because the editors prefer him. Anti-theism is the one bias which pervades this wiki in unhealthy quantities. And since many of the editors are anti-theist, they prefer Carrier's work. I will say that it's a little odd that no one responded to you yet. Perhaps you should bring up your concerns on BruceGrubb's talk page. But beware, he is not very level headed when it comes to this topic. 108.12.203.165 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Alex on a different computer

Actually, Carrier is cited so much because he is the only one to have gotten a pro mythist book through double blind peer review (and what he did is perfectly normal of peer review in the UK, deal with it) This makes it the go to source for anything reasonable on the matter.

Esoteric24, you seemed to have missed the "Editorial oversight and error" section which obliquely addresses this matter: "With this kind of filing system it is clear why the claim Christians were actively destroying what had been saved from the collapse of Rome is insane...odds are they didn't know what they had in the first place. In fact it was due to the Renaissance and interest in the Classical world that many copies of Greek and Roman works that monasteries didn't even know they had were, as Burke put it, "saved from the mildew and the rats". And even then some works were missed; for example, Books IV–X of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies were found in a monastery of Mount Athos in 1842!"--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction of the article

I read the introduction of the article and I have one word to say: Madness! Martin Van Holder (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Too vague. Explain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)