Page 5 of 10

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:27 pm
by Gman
DannyM wrote:Gman,

I watched that youtube video and read the comments. There are so many atheists on there making errors - I mean BLATANT ERRORS - that one can only conclude that these people are so entrenched in their need/desire for Jesus to be a myth that they actually willingly lie to themselves and in print on a youtube forum. I nearly opened an account on there just to correct these people for their embarrassing errors, but there was one guy on there taking them all to the cleaners; and yet they still wouldn't believe it. My word, how a worldview can distort the mind ...
For many atheist I simply see it as a knee-jerk reaction.. It's just an automated response.. There is no rhyme or reason. Jesus is automatically false because he is. We might as well be having conversations with hand puppets. :roll:

You could write all the convincing arguments in the world and they wouldn't read it anyways..

I really don't think it's the evidence... I think it might be something else like answering to morality..

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:32 pm
by Gman
Mars anyone?

The Areopagus (Mars Hill)

Acts 17:22
"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious."

"The Areopagus, like most city-state institutions, continued to function in Roman times, and it was from this location, drawing from the potential significance of the Athenian altar to the Unknown God, that the Apostle Paul is said to have delivered the famous speech, "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands." Acts 17:24

Source: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus

Image

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:34 pm
by PaulB007
I just don't understand why someone would not want to find God or be open to it. What is the appeal of fighting so hard for a world view that all feelings, morals, ect are illusory?

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:35 pm
by DannyM
Gman wrote:
DannyM wrote:Gman,

I watched that youtube video and read the comments. There are so many atheists on there making errors - I mean BLATANT ERRORS - that one can only conclude that these people are so entrenched in their need/desire for Jesus to be a myth that they actually willingly lie to themselves and in print on a youtube forum. I nearly opened an account on there just to correct these people for their embarrassing errors, but there was one guy on there taking them all to the cleaners; and yet they still wouldn't believe it. My word, how a worldview can distort the mind ...
For many atheist I simply see it as a knee-jerk reaction.. It's just an automated response.. There is no rhyme or reason. Jesus is automatically false because he is. We might as well be having conversations with hand puppets. :roll:

You could write all the convincing arguments in the world and they wouldn't read it anyways..

I really don't think it's the evidence... I think it might be something else like answering to morality..
I think you could be right. Well, the foul language and sheer hostility of many atheists indicates that there is something deep rooted involved here. Perhaps they'll grow out of it; many do. :amen:

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:42 pm
by Gman
PaulB007 wrote:I just don't understand why someone would not want to find God or be open to it. What is the appeal of fighting so hard for a world view that all feelings, morals, ect are illusory?
True... What's the appeal for not fighting for these things?

Mark 12:31

Luke 6:35

Luke 10:27

John 15:13

John 15:17

Matthew 5:3-11

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:34 pm
by PaulB007
Gman wrote:
PaulB007 wrote:I just don't understand why someone would not want to find God or be open to it. What is the appeal of fighting so hard for a world view that all feelings, morals, ect are illusory?
True... What's the appeal for not fighting for these things?

Mark 12:31

Luke 6:35

Luke 10:27

John 15:13

John 15:17

Matthew 5:3-11

I whole heatedly agree. While I was always a skeptic of Judaism-Christianity, the NT message was always a beautiful one to me.

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:20 am
by Swimmy
DannyM wrote:
Swimmy wrote:Just for for fun. I forwarded this evidence to a angry atheist. If you wish to refute. I'll paste your argument back to him..

2. Josephus Flavius (37-100 AD). A Jewish-Roman historian who wrote various passages about Christ. His supposed sorcery, his death and resurrection, and his brother James and John the Baptist.


Wrong. There are only TWO such mentions, both very brief and interrupting the flow of the narrative, and they are both later Christian interpolations.
You can tell this person that he is spectacularly wrong. In the 90s AD Josephus wrote a broad history of the Jewish people, Jewish [Antiquities]. Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to any Christian who reads his bible. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in [Antiquities]. First, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This is known as the Testimonium Flavianum:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

According to one of the leading scholars on Jopsephus, Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Louis Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pg 990-91).

Here's a reconstruction of what scholars of "partial authenticity" believe the original text of the [TF] would have looked like in book 18:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out."

(John Meier, A Marginal Jew, pg 61)

There were almost certainly interpolations to the text. However, scholars are near-unanimous that the text, for the large part, is unmistakably from Joesephus' hand. A few examples:

1. "Now there was about this time Jesus"

The digression and introductory phrase are typical of Josephus.

"The opening phrase 'about this time' is characteristic of his language in this part of [Antiquities], where he is weaving together distinct episodes into a coherent narrative." (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, pg 171)

2. "a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man"

The phrase "wise man" is characteristically Josephan; it almost certainly is not a Christian addition. This is followed by the obvious interpolation "if it be lawful to call him a man" This indicates that the interpolator found the description of Jesus as a "wise man" to be woefully inadequate. Sp he remedies this insufficient description of Jesus by clarifying that there is good reason to doubt he was just a man. A Christian scribe would not deny that Jesus was wise, but would certainly feel it to be insufficient since Jesus was God.

"As it stands, the reticence to call Jesus a man seems like a rejoinder to the previous, already flattering statement that he was a wise man. It seems more like a qualification of an existing statement than part of a free creation." (Mason, ibid)

3. "for he was a doer of wonderful works"

Mason confirms that the term "startling/incredible deeds" (paradoxa) is Josephan: "Josephus often speaks of “marvels” and “incredible” things in the same breath, as the testimonium does. He even uses the phrase rendered “incredible deeds” in two other places, once of the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182; cf. 12.63)." (Mason, ibid)

4. "a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure"

The phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" is again characteristically Josephan.

"In particular, Thackeray, the prince of Josephan scholars, who went so far in his study of Josephus' language as to compose a lexicon to Josephus for his own use so as to see how precisely each word is used in Josephus and whether there is evidence of shifts of style in various parts of his works due to his "assistants" or to other reasons, noted that the phrase 'such people as accept the truth gladly' is characteristic of the scribe in this part of the [Antiquities], since the phrase appears eight times in books 17-19 (supposedly the work of the Thucydidean assistant) and nowhere else in Josephus."

(Louis Feldman, The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question, Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert Berkley and Sarah Edwards, pg 188).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second reference:

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The validity of Josephus' reference to James' Martyrdom increases the likelihood that the [TF] is also valid. In the reference to James, he refers to Jesus as "the so-called Christ" without further explanation. Because the reference to Jesus is likely meant to specify which James Josephus was discussing, it is probable that Josephus had already explained to his audience the significance of Jesus, hence "the so-called Christ."

"Within Josephus' narrative, this phrasing is best explained by his wish to recall his earlier reference to Jesus (Ant. 18.63—64), thus: “this man was the brother of the one I mentioned before.” It might also be that Josephus means to indicate something of the accusations brought against James: just as his brother was condemned by some Jewish leaders, so also James ran afoul of Ananus. But if Josephus did not think James' actions worthy of death, that might support the view that the original form of the testimonium was similarly mild."(Mason, ibid)

Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan; Jewish scholars such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter; secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. [Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000]. Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249).

Practically the only scholars disagreeing with this are Jesus Mythologists; kinda tell a story in itself ...
Swimmy wrote:Etc. etc. etc., yadda yadda yadda - you got *nothing*. Stuff decades and centuries after the supposed events, written by people who weren't even born yet at the time the supposed events supposedly took place.
Sources for Jesus date to within 20 years of his death. Ask this person if he's read Bart Ehrman, who dates Paul's writings to the early 50s AD. ask him if he accepts that Plato lived? That Aristotle lived? That Socrates lived? If he does, then inform him that these three joined together would not account for even HALF of the evidence that we have for Jesus' existence.
Swimmy wrote:Why can you not find a single source LIVING AND WRITING IN JERUSALEM DURING THAT TIME who mentions your jesus? We have plenty of extant texts from that time/place
Um, tell him that he should take an objective look at the evidence. Tell him that his source is historically deficient. Tell him that, if he wishes to know the truth, not to rely only on sources who start out with a predisposition and an agenda. Then he may get somewhere.
Thanks I'll reply back with what you said. See what else he has to say then.

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:37 pm
by Swimmy
Well now hes getting a little hostile. In his tone. Obviously it touched him the wrong way. Along with a less than stellar rebuttal .

So Danny M.

Read to finish him off?

Josephus

"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." — Josephus, Life, 2.

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." — Josephus, Antiquities 18.23.
Yes, SOMEONE is certainly spectacularly wrong here [[smoke1]]

According to one of the leading scholars on Jopsephus, Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Louis Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pg 990-91).

"The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." — Catholic Encyclopedia

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." - Dr. Gordon Stein

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in fact, acknowledges that no early church fathers were aware of this passage, not until Jerome and Eusebius in the 4th century CE, though many used Josephus' works extensively.

You can't accept anything Christians tell you as the truth. They're a bunch of unethical, self-serving liars who would tell you white is black, if they think that's what church doctrine says:

"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood" - EUSEBIUS - 'The Father of Church History'

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it"

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

But there will apparently never be a shortage of borderline retarded, gullible simps to mindlessly repeat whatever they're told [[smile]] You have a nice day, now [[aura]]

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:38 am
by DannyM
he wrote wrote:"The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." — Catholic Encyclopedia
Hmm, let us look at the passage in full from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations. The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people. The accounts which he gives of the rise and mutual relations of the different Jewish sects, which are so important in the history and sufferings of the Saviour; his information regarding the corruption of the ancient Jewish customs and institutions; his statement concerning the internal conflicts of the Jews, and lastly his account of the last war with the Romans, which put an end to the national independence of the Jews, are of prime importance as historical sources."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

This does nothing more than confirm what scholars already know to be the case. What on earth does the gentleman thinks he achieves by quoting this 'killer' line on its own?
he wrote wrote:"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." - Dr. Gordon Stein
This claim is simply bogus. Louis Feldman says that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found that most of the TF is authentic.

Peter Kirby, in his own review of the literature since 1980, shows a trend pointing to even further consensus: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
he wrote wrote:The Catholic Encyclopedia, in fact, acknowledges that no early church fathers were aware of this passage, not until Jerome and Eusebius in the 4th century CE, though many used Josephus' works extensively.
Does the gentleman even check his sources? Let us again look at the Catholic Enyclopedia:

"The early Christians were zealous readers of Josephus's "History of the Jews", and the Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Ambrose, as well as the early ecclesiastical historians like Eusebius, are fond of quoting him in their works. St. Chrysostom calls him a useful expounder of the historical books of the Old Testament."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

Now where does the Catholic Encyclopedia "acknowledge that no early church fathers were aware of this passage...until Jerome and Eusebius"? How does this "acknowledge" such a thing? John Meier argues: "If until shortly before the time of Eusebius the Testimonium lacked the three Christian interpolations I have bracketed, the Church Fathers would not have been overly eager to cite it; for it hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief - not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians." (John Meier, A Marginal Jew, pg 79)

Note what Meier says here. "This would explain why Origen in the 3d century affirmed that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Contra Celsum 1.47). Origen's text of the Testimonium simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief..." If the gentleman would like the Contra Cesus, book 1 chapter 47, then I'll provide him with this too. In the meantime I advise him to undertake an urgent review of his sources, as this is becoming very embarrassing.

Jeffery Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, said: "Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth century."

So why would Josephus' rather mundane passages concerning Jesus be of such importance when Jesus' historicity wasn't even in question? Therefore, this gentleman is to be found breathtakinly wanting on this issue.
he mentioned wrote:Eusebius
Gregory of Nazianzus
Ignatius Loyola
Martin Luther
I suggest he comes forward with books and chapters if he wishes to engage in full discussion.
he wrote wrote:You can't accept anything Christians tell you as the truth. They're a bunch of unethical, self-serving liars who would tell you white is black, if they think that's what church doctrine says
Oh my. This gentleman appears to be severely lacking the rational receptors required for objective study in this area.
he wrote wrote:But there will apparently never be a shortage of borderline retarded, gullible simps to mindlessly repeat whatever they're told
"Retarded" can be defined as 'backward in mental or physical development.' Now, I'll leave it to those viewing the ramblings of this irrational being to conclude for themselves who is lacking in certain 'mental' attributes... However, I wouldn't wish to insult the truly retarded by associating them with such wilful ignorance of the type being shown here by this gentleman. I'm actually embarrassed for him.

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:58 am
by Swimmy
He actually added one more part a little later.


"Let's not get carried away with fanboy exaggeration. Socrates alone has at least three primary sources which attest to his existence; Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. We know when and where these authors lived, to whom they were writing, and what their biases were. At best, Jesus has a secondary source in Paul and a potential secondary source in Josephus, who doesn't cite his sources. It's unknown whether the Gospels are secondary, tertiary or even lesser sources. When the source of info is unlnown, the info is considered hearsay. A mountain of hearsay is still hearsay and doesn't trump primary source material. Plato and Aristotle have more primary sources than Socrates.

The quality of evidence for each of those three men is greater than that for Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is weak, but still enough to where someone can choose to accept he existed. The hackneyed claim that there is more evidence for Jesus than almost any other famous ancient figure is just hyperbole meant to charge 'anti-Christian' bias in anyone who dares question his existence."

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:14 am
by jlay
I just don't understand why someone would not want to find God or be open to it. What is the appeal of fighting so hard for a world view that all feelings, morals, ect are illusory?
Probably a different thread, but there are a lot of reasons, people do not want to be 'open' as you say.

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:16 am
by DannyM
he wrote wrote:Let's not get carried away with fanboy exaggeration. Socrates alone has at least three primary sources which attest to his existence; Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. We know when and where these authors lived, to whom they were writing, and what their biases were. At best, Jesus has a secondary source in Paul and a potential secondary source in Josephus, who doesn't cite his sources. It's unknown whether the Gospels are secondary, tertiary or even lesser sources. When the source of info is unlnown, the info is considered hearsay. A mountain of hearsay is still hearsay and doesn't trump primary source material. Plato and Aristotle have more primary sources than Socrates.
Is this guy serious? Jesus has eyewitness sources in Matthew the disciple, Peter the disciple, John the beloved disciple, James, a witness to Jesus before and post resurrection; Paul, another eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus; Mark, the close companion of the eyewitness Peter; Luke, the close companion of the eyewitness Paul. Matthew, Mark and Luke: their biographies can be dated to within 30 years of Jesus. All this gentleman needs to do is look at the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, then to the seondary accounts of Jesus, and wonder how everything seems to fit. How did the disciples succeed in converting countless numbers of people if it was all a lie? The earliest converts were those who lived in the same time and in the same geographical area; they simply would have called the disciples liars if Jesus was not real and had not died on the cross. The disciples appealed to the common knowledge these people had about Jesus. Then when all secular sources are checked and compared with first-hand accounts of Jesus, we are left with only one conclusion. That Jesus existed is beyond any doubt. That there are those who still question his existence is frankly laughable; there is no scholarly deduction being made when coming to this nonsensical conclusion.
he wrote wrote:The quality of evidence for each of those three men is greater than that for Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is weak, but still enough to where someone can choose to accept he existed. The hackneyed claim that there is more evidence for Jesus than almost any other famous ancient figure is just hyperbole meant to charge 'anti-Christian' bias in anyone who dares question his existence."
Manuscript evidence?

"The manuscript evidence for the bible again far outweighs any manuscipt evidence for all other books of antiquity. For Plato we have only 7 manbuscripts, with a time span between the earliest extant copy and the original writing being 1300 years; with the bible we have over 5000 manuscripts, which are measured to within the 10s of years."

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/v ... robelT1074

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:29 pm
by Gman
Beautiful work there Danny... :clap:

You got the touch....

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:49 pm
by DannyM
Gman wrote:Beautiful work there Danny... :clap:

You got the touch....
Hey thanks Gman. I just hope the overwhelming evidence convinces this person how irrational he is being. But I won't hold my breath... :)

Re: The historical evidence for Christ

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:02 pm
by Gman
DannyM wrote:
Gman wrote:Beautiful work there Danny... :clap:

You got the touch....
Hey thanks Gman. I just hope the overwhelming evidence convinces this person how irrational he is being. But I won't hold my breath... :)
It's looking good to me... ;)
Skimmy wrote:The evidence for Jesus is weak, but still enough to where someone can choose to accept he existed. The hackneyed claim that there is more evidence for Jesus than almost any other famous ancient figure is just hyperbole meant to charge 'anti-Christian' bias in anyone who dares question his existence."
I guess what I don't understand is when they say that Christ wasn't mentioned much in sources outside the Bible like with other historians different than Josephus and such.. First off there was, but according to the Bible the worst doubters of Christ were his own apostles, Mark 16:11. Christ's OWN apostles rejected him even after they witnessed an earthquake, a darkness, the temple curtain splitting, and a red blood moon at his death. Not to mention the other miracles he performed during his lifetime.

But according to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a (AD 70-200), however, it explicitly states that Jesus was killed on the eve of the Jewish Passover for sorcery. In fact, people in Jerusalem even accused Jesus himself of being possessed by a demon, John 7:20; 8:52.

So there is some evidence... Jesus was rejected by the Jews and the apostles for sorcery, so when they saw the earthquake, a darkness, the temple curtain splitting, and a red blood moon or the miracles he performed, they must have associated it with demons and satanism. Therefore the significance of Christs death and resurrection was greatly diminished. Christ was associated with evil and his name was tarnished or neglected from the records as another sorcerer by certain historians and the general Jewish population at that time..