The end of Empire-USA third world country

[Andy]

Christianity is a scam, it's a made-up religion.

...there is NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed.

Well I think I'd have to disagree with you on that! You saw that coming yes?

Roman historian Tacitus

Wrote about Jesus, and verified that he was killed by Pilot, and that his movement was checked for a moment, then broke out all over Judea and then Rome. He also verified that Nero mercilessly slaughtered the Christians.​

Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governer

Wrote to Emperor Trajan on how to deal with Christians and wrote of what he knew of them saying

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."​

Josephus, a Jewish Historian and writer for the Roman Government

Wrote about many things that are recorded in the New Testiment, such as the death of John the Baptist by Herod.

Josephus also records the trial of James, and clearly states "James the brother of Jesus, the one who is called Christ".​

On a side note: There is a disputed writing "Testimonium Flavianum" which clearly states that there was a man named Jesus and he was crucified. Whether the document was forged at the time of writing, isn't relevant as no one would believe a forged document about a non-existent person within years of his supposed existence. So either way, it referred to a real person.

It would be like making up Mohamed Atta flew a plane into a sky scraper in 2001 when it didn't happen and thinking everyone in 2008 would fall for it.

Babylonian Talmud

Wrote specifically of a man named Yeshu, which translated to English is Jesus. That he was to be killed on the eve of the passover, and used a reference to crucifixion.​

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist.

He wrote that Christians worshiped a man who due to his teachings was killed. From the moment they covert, they deny the Greek gods, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.​

There are several things to note. First, all of these were written prior to Constantine. Second, all of them were not believers. Third, this is not an exhaustive list, just some basic sources. There are more. Fourth, between all these sources, it is clear there was a man named Jesus, that he lived and taught, and was considered wise and highly regarded, that was crucified, under pilot, on the passover, that early believers considered him the Christ, and that they worshiped him as God.

And on a final point, Jesus is referred to in the Qur'an quite a few times, and even there it refers to him as a real person, as a prophet of God, and as someone who did miracles.

So one thing is without question... there is hard validated evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ. I great number of people have tried to disprove it, and many have become believers. Frank Morison for example, was a lawyer, educated at Oxford, and a staunch Atheist. Morison set out to write a book disproving Christianity, and ended up writing Who Moved the Stone?, a classic support of the historicity of Jesus. Also C.S. Lewis, an atheist who grew tired of being badgered by believers, set out to disprove it, and ended up writing Mere Christianity and The Four Loves. This list could go on for pages, but I rest my case.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The religion is an eclectic mix of stuff plaigarized from other cultural and religious traditions.

And one of those happened yesterday, in fact...the feast honoring the goddess Ishtar, also known as Eastre.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well I think I'd have to disagree with you on that! You saw that coming yes?

Roman historian Tacitus

Wrote about Jesus, and verified that he was killed by Pilot, and that his movement was checked for a moment, then broke out all over Judea and then Rome. He also verified that Nero mercilessly slaughtered the Christians.​

Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governer

Wrote to Emperor Trajan on how to deal with Christians and wrote of what he knew of them saying

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."​

Josephus, a Jewish Historian and writer for the Roman Government

Wrote about many things that are recorded in the New Testiment, such as the death of John the Baptist by Herod.

Josephus also records the trial of James, and clearly states "James the brother of Jesus, the one who is called Christ".​

On a side note: There is a disputed writing "Testimonium Flavianum" which clearly states that there was a man named Jesus and he was crucified. Whether the document was forged at the time of writing, isn't relevant as no one would believe a forged document about a non-existent person within years of his supposed existence. So either way, it referred to a real person.

It would be like making up Mohamed Atta flew a plane into a sky scraper in 2001 when it didn't happen and thinking everyone in 2008 would fall for it.

Babylonian Talmud

Wrote specifically of a man named Yeshu, which translated to English is Jesus. That he was to be killed on the eve of the passover, and used a reference to crucifixion.​

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist.

He wrote that Christians worshiped a man who due to his teachings was killed. From the moment they covert, they deny the Greek gods, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.​

There are several things to note. First, all of these were written prior to Constantine. Second, all of them were not believers. Third, this is not an exhaustive list, just some basic sources. There are more. Fourth, between all these sources, it is clear there was a man named Jesus, that he lived and taught, and was considered wise and highly regarded, that was crucified, under pilot, on the passover, that early believers considered him the Christ, and that they worshiped him as God.

And on a final point, Jesus is referred to in the Qur'an quite a few times, and even there it refers to him as a real person, as a prophet of God, and as someone who did miracles.

So one thing is without question... there is hard validated evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ. I great number of people have tried to disprove it, and many have become believers. Frank Morison for example, was a lawyer, educated at Oxford, and a staunch Atheist. Morison set out to write a book disproving Christianity, and ended up writing Who Moved the Stone?, a classic support of the historicity of Jesus. Also C.S. Lewis, an atheist who grew tired of being badgered by believers, set out to disprove it, and ended up writing Mere Christianity and The Four Loves. This list could go on for pages, but I rest my case.

Did you read my source? In it they talk about writing things so that they had the appearance of antiquity. It's a scam.

 

[Andy]

Did you read my source? In it they talk about writing things so that they had the appearance of antiquity. It's a scam.

If they are somehow claiming that Josephus, Pliny, Lucian of Samosata, and the Babylonian Talmud, were all fictional, or that somehow they created a scroll, fabricated the signatures of all 4 and made up four distinct perspectives from each, that all fit in with their previous writings so well as to not be able to tell them apart from non-fabricated writings... then that is a joke.

Josephus knew of Jesus, but did not accept him as Christ, and wrote from a historical perspective. Pliny wrote from the perspective of a governor who wanted to know how he was to conduct trials against Christians and why since he found them doing nothing offensive. Lucian was making fun of Christians and ridiculing them. The Talmud was from the perspective of the Jewish religious leaders of the day who hated Jesus, and ultimately got him killed. Now does this sound like a group you'd pick to fabricate from in order to support your beliefs?

The validation of these writings is greater than that of Shakespeare. There is less historically validated evidence of Plato than of Jesus of Nazareth. The Dead Sea Scrolls give a lot of credit to the preservation method used to pass on the religious writings.

Start checking sources that hold their honor in the field of ancient writings higher than their hatred of Christianity.

What you are basically claiming is that thousands of agnostic scholars, jeopardizing their reputations and possibly their jobs, have supported a claim of a religion they do not believe, for what purpose?

That is a ridiculous assessment that is just as unlikely as the early church being martyred for something they all knew was a lie. You might convince someone to be a martyred for a lie they believe is true. But you never convince someone to be martyred something said to be true, that they know is a lie.

You are telling me that the early church went around saying they believed in Jesus, someone that was supposed to have been alive and killed during their life time, but never actually happened, just so that they could be tarred and pitched, and lit on fire to light Nero's garden parties?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If they are somehow claiming that Josephus, Pliny, Lucian of Samosata, and the Babylonian Talmud, were all fictional, or that somehow they created a scroll, fabricated the signatures of all 4 and made up four distinct perspectives from each, that all fit in with their previous writings so well as to not be able to tell them apart from non-fabricated writings... then that is a joke.

Josephus knew of Jesus, but did not accept him as Christ, and wrote from a historical perspective. Pliny wrote from the perspective of a governor who wanted to know how he was to conduct trials against Christians and why since he found them doing nothing offensive. Lucian was making fun of Christians and ridiculing them. The Talmud was from the perspective of the Jewish religious leaders of the day who hated Jesus, and ultimately got him killed. Now does this sound like a group you'd pick to fabricate from in order to support your beliefs?

The validation of these writings is greater than that of Shakespeare. There is less historically validated evidence of Plato than of Jesus of Nazareth. The Dead Sea Scrolls give a lot of credit to the preservation method used to pass on the religious writings.

Start checking sources that hold their honor in the field of ancient writings higher than their hatred of Christianity.

What you are basically claiming is that thousands of agnostic scholars, jeopardizing their reputations and possibly their jobs, have supported a claim of a religion they do not believe, for what purpose?

That is a ridiculous assessment that is just as unlikely as the early church being martyred for something they all knew was a lie. You might convince someone to be a martyred for a lie they believe is true. But you never convince someone to be martyred something said to be true, that they know is a lie.

You are telling me that the early church went around saying they believed in Jesus, someone that was supposed to have been alive and killed during their life time, but never actually happened, just so that they could be tarred and pitched, and lit on fire to light Nero's garden parties?

I am going to take your answer as a firm "no". People martyr themselves for all kinds of reasons--those reasons can be imaginary too. We get to read in the paper almost every day of suicide bombers martyring themselves for reasons that I suspect you would find imaginary.

You talk about "the church" as if it was some kind of monolithic entity and nothing could be further from the truth.

You need to read more about the history of your own religion, I think.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, I don't think people should fear Hell, Christianity is a scam, it's a made-up religion. Check out the words of the people who made it up:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

That source that "quotes" the Catholic Encyclopedia takes statements out of context, misquotes, and in some instances even alters the text to make it appear to be what it is not. I could go on and on about the dishonesty of that source but I will present just one example. I don't even know if it the most damning.

This is what your source says the Catholics say:

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

The actual quote says that the titles of the books of the bible do not go back to the first century... There is a big difference between the gospel and the title of the book.
The fact that your source goes to so much trouble to distort the truth indicates that there is no real evidence that supports the claim. Why lie when you could give actual facts?

Here is the actual text:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Anyone who looks with an open mind will discover that the earliest records of Christianity show clearly that there is NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed.

That is laughable. First there is the testimony of the bible that was disemminated beyond the reach of constantine long before he was born and was therefore out of his reach to influence let alone make up. Then there is a wealth and variety of sources other than the bible that mention the existence of Jesus.

 

[Andy]

I am going to take your answer as a firm "no". People martyr themselves for all kinds of reasons--those reasons can be imaginary too. We get to read in the paper almost every day of suicide bombers martyring themselves for reasons that I suspect you would find imaginary.

You talk about "the church" as if it was some kind of monolithic entity and nothing could be further from the truth.

You need to read more about the history of your own religion, I think.

Yes I did... it's still wrong. It is possible to read something and see that it is not correct? Yes?

The point is that the martyrs do not think it is imaginary. Yes I do, of course. But no one is martyred for things they KNOW are not true!

You are suggestion that Peter, Paul and all the rest KNEW that there was no Jesus, or that he never rose from the dead, and decided that being tortured and martyred for something they knew was completely false, was a great alternative to living a normal happy life. Most of them were killed with the option that, all they had to do was just simply deny Jesus, and they would be spared.

So you are Peter. You make up that you met a man named Jesus. Make up that he healed a bunch of people and did miracles. Make up that he said he was the son of God. Make up that he was persecuted by the religious authorities of the day, that also happen to make up that they persecuted a mythical man named Jesus. Then made up that was killed. Made up that he rose from the dead. Made up that he came and talked with you. Made up that he said go and preach to everyone repentance and forgiveness of sin.

Then after spreading this massive lie everywhere to everyone, and somehow having your own lie match up with everyone else's lie about this mythical non-existent Jesus, you are beaten, tortured, stoned, and given an ultimatum: Deny Jesus, or die. And you think, 'well I always wanted to be killed for a completely made up fairy tale', and so you refuse and are killed. Does this seem likely to you?

 

[vyo476]

Then there is a wealth and variety of sources other than the bible that mention the existence of Jesus.

The only ones I know of are Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Celsus, Lucian, and Seutonius, and only Josephus is taken to be a historical reference.

Pliny doesn't offer any actual information about Jesus the historical figure. He simply shows that there were Christians and they worshipped Christ as divine.

Tacitus comes a bit closer, but only references the popular view of who Christ was at the time. It's highly unlikely that any records of who Jesus was existed in Rome, and even more unlikely that Tacitus went digging through the archives to find them - it's more likely that he simply asked a Christian who Jesus was (this postulation courtesy of Richard Carrier).

Celsus was a vocal critic of Christianity. Lucian was a satirist and was believed to be a friend and peer of Celsus. As such, their mentions of Christ all refer to popular views of who he was rather than historical records of his life, much like Pliny.

Seutonius' passing reference to "Chrestus" as the insitigator of riots amongst the Jews during Claudius' reign is barely even worth mentioning, since all Biblical sources say that Jesus was long dead by the time Claudius became Emperor. Historical mention of Christianity? Yes. Historical mention of Jesus? No.

Josephus is the only non-Christian source to report on historical facts about Jesus during the Early Christian Period, and the authenticity of his writings are hotly contested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

If you know of any that I missed, I'd be interested to hear about them.

 

[Dr.Who]

The only ones I know of are Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Celsus, Lucian, and Seutonius, and only Josephus is taken to be a historical reference.

Pliny doesn't offer any actual information about Jesus the historical figure. He simply shows that there were Christians and they worshipped Christ as divine.

Tacitus comes a bit closer, but only references the popular view of who Christ was at the time. It's highly unlikely that any records of who Jesus was existed in Rome, and even more unlikely that Tacitus went digging through the archives to find them - it's more likely that he simply asked a Christian who Jesus was (this postulation courtesy of Richard Carrier).

Celsus was a vocal critic of Christianity. Lucian was a satirist and was believed to be a friend and peer of Celsus. As such, their mentions of Christ all refer to popular views of who he was rather than historical records of his life, much like Pliny.

Seutonius' passing reference to "Chrestus" as the insitigator of riots amongst the Jews during Claudius' reign is barely even worth mentioning, since all Biblical sources say that Jesus was long dead by the time Claudius became Emperor. Historical mention of Christianity? Yes. Historical mention of Jesus? No.

Josephus is the only non-Christian source to report on historical facts about Jesus during the Early Christian Period, and the authenticity of his writings are hotly contested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

If you know of any that I missed, I'd be interested to hear about them.

There are a number listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

as well as a discussion of the merits the theory that He did not exist. One paragraph says it all:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[76]

But you knew that since most of your criticisms came from that source. Do you believe only the parts you like?

 

[vyo476]

There are a number listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

as well as a discussion of the merits the theory that He did not exist. One paragraph says it all:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[76]

But you knew that since most of your criticisms came from that source. Do you believe only the parts you like?

The only two non-Christian sources listed on the the Wikipedia page (and for the record, yes, I was referencing it when I put up my own post) that I did not list in my previous post were Thallus, whose works do not survive today and who did not actually mention Jesus; instead, he himself was mentioned in conjunction with Sextus Julius Africanus' account of the crucifixition from the early Third Century. I didn't feel that merited mention. The other non-Christian source is apparently a Talmud translation, but I didn't understand how it pertains to the subject, so I didn't include it.

What I asked you was if there were any other non-Christian historical accounts of the life of Jesus. I'm well aware that historians and Biblical scholars are generally of the opinion that Jesus was a real historical figure. In terms of personal belief, I believe this as well; I have a hard time swallowing the idea that Jesus wasn't at least a real historical figure, not without further evidence. However, I also have a hard time believing that the prevailing positive view on the historicity of Jesus is based solely on the absence of evidence that he did not exist. That's why I listed the sources I knew of and their unreliability. I'd like to learn more.

 

[Dr.Who]

The only two non-Christian sources listed on the the Wikipedia page (and for the record, yes, I was referencing it when I put up my own post)

Whether or not the source is Christian has not been demonstrated to make any difference. None of the statements written by the NT writers has been demonstrated to be false and all the statemenst that can be verifed have been shown to be true. They are reliable. Additionally, the writers themselves clearly believed what they wrote or they would not have martyred themselves rather than just recant.

What the NT writers do that makes people uncomfortable is that they claim to have seen miracles. I supposed they did.

When we use ancient lit to determine the historicity of other figures - like Julius Ceasar - we don't hesitate to rely on material that is sketchier than the NT and often makes equally incredible claims.

that I did not list in my previous post were Thallus, whose works do not survive today and who did not actually mention Jesus; instead, he himself was mentioned in conjunction with Sextus Julius Africanus' account of the crucifixition from the early Third Century. I didn't feel that merited mention.

So true. Yet some of the other ones are much better. What would happen if instead of looking for the weakest links in the evidence you looked at the strongest links and the most likely conclusion to be true?

The other non-Christian source is apparently a Talmud translation, but I didn't understand how it pertains to the subject, so I didn't include it.

Yeshu is the hebrew word for Jesus.

What I asked you was if there were any other non-Christian historical accounts of the life of Jesus. I'm well aware that historians and Biblical scholars are generally of the opinion that Jesus was a real historical figure. In terms of personal belief, I believe this as well; I have a hard time swallowing the idea that Jesus wasn't at least a real historical figure, not without further evidence.

You are correct that the vast majority of those who make it their career to study ancient lit and history are in agreement that the evidence is overhwelmingly in favor of Him being a real person.


However, I also have a hard time believing that the prevailing positive view on the historicity of Jesus is based solely on the absence of evidence that he did not exist. That's why I listed the sources I knew of and their unreliability. I'd like to learn more.[/QUOTE]

It is not based on the absence of evidence of non-existence. There are numerous references to his existence. Skeptics can dismiss them one by one but only if they let their biases get involved or demand a level of proof that they would never demand if the subject matter were not Jesus.

 

[Andy]

Historical mention of Christianity? Yes. Historical mention of Jesus? No.

Well, the point being made here is that, would there be a 'christianity' if there was no christ at this time in history? The answer is no.

It is one thing to convince people that 200 years ago "Bob the Prophet" lived in Ohio and ran around healing people. I might be able to conjure up enough subjective evidence to convince some ignorant people of this.

It's a totally different thing to say "Bob the Prophet" walked down Main Street last week/month healing people... why? Because you can go to the people on Main St and ask them if they saw this Bob the Prophet.

So what Christ denying people must do is say that there was no Christianity prior to Constantine making it up, because if he didn't exist, there could not be a Christianity. No one is going to believe that Jesus healed thousands and fed five thousand and preach on the mount, just a month ago, when they can ask around and not find anyone there.

So the fact that clearly and obviously there was a Christian belief prior to Constantine, destroys this argument, and does indicate the historicity of Jesus Christ.

What I asked you was if there were any other non-Christian historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Like a Gospel from a non-christian, detailing his life, in a PBS documentary way. I doubt that exists. The Jewish Religious leadership saw Jesus as an enemy. They didn't want news of him going anywhere. Thus no one connected to the Sanhedrin would be writing much about Jesus life. Further, the Pharisees had made it so that being connected to Jesus would get you thrown out of the temple, a very big negative in Jewish tradition. This would polarize people, such that you were either a follower, or you kept away from him. So the only people likely to write about Jesus were those that believed he was the Christ. Of course the Romans couldn't possibly care less about some Jew running around as long as he didn't cause a problem.

However, I also have a hard time believing that the prevailing positive view on the historicity of Jesus is based solely on the absence of evidence that he did not exist.

Actually I think that is great evidence. It's not by any stretch the sole evidence, but it is good evidence. Remember the religious establishment of the day hated Christ and his followers. Now if he really didn't exist, think how much evidence there would be of this.

The blind man who could now see... they could find him and show him off in the streets 'hey! he's still blind! Jesus never healed him!'.

Or the water to wine that the servants at the wedding saw, they could find them 'Yeah I don't know what their talking about. We just went to the cellar and brought out more bottles'.

The feeding of the five thousand, they wouldn't even be able to find one of the five thousand (five thousand all on a hill to listen to no one?), let alone have them state they were never fed by a boys lunch of 2 fish and some bread.

If Jesus never existed, the Pharisees would have truck loads of evidence proving that nothing that apostles said, in fact happened. Instead, all they could say is.... well yeah he did do it, but it's from the devil!

On a side note, (this may not apply to you) but I'm always concerned when people refuse to consider evidence because of the source. Source is a consideration, but to not even review evidence based on where it came from alone, is a dangerous thing in my mind. This is what occults do. The claim to be the sole source for information, and you can't consider what anyone else says because no one else in 'enlightened'.

I've hit this with Catholics and with Islamist. I remember having a discussion with a group of Muslims, where I pointed out some errors with their religious frame work. To which they immediately pointed out the information came from a non-muslim, and thus was completely invalid. I realized, after arguing for a longer time, that nothing I came up with was going to be of any use because every single shred of evidence came from a non-muslim source, and in their mind, was irrelevant.

When you setup a situation where the only trustworthy sources of information is limited to your own little group, that is occultism. Even the root meaning of occultism, is knowledge of the hidden. It's only us! We know the truth! You can't trust anyone else, because they don't know it, only we do!

Oddly, many atheist do the same thing. You can't trust any of those people because they don't know. They made it all up. Ignore what they say, only believe other atheist like us. We know. All of them do not.

Good churches, and granted there are not that many, want you to test the faith. I've heard preachers openly say, bring your questions, test the scriptures, God can handle your skepticism. BTW, I do know there are bad churches out there that teach you shouldn't question, you shouldn't use your mind, and if you happen to know ones like that, stop going, and do not go again. Bad church.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes I did... it's still wrong. It is possible to read something and see that it is not correct? Yes?

The point is that the martyrs do not think it is imaginary. Yes I do, of course. But no one is martyred for things they KNOW are not true!

You are suggestion that Peter, Paul and all the rest KNEW that there was no Jesus, or that he never rose from the dead, and decided that being tortured and martyred for something they knew was completely false, was a great alternative to living a normal happy life. Most of them were killed with the option that, all they had to do was just simply deny Jesus, and they would be spared.

So you are Peter. You make up that you met a man named Jesus. Make up that he healed a bunch of people and did miracles. Make up that he said he was the son of God. Make up that he was persecuted by the religious authorities of the day, that also happen to make up that they persecuted a mythical man named Jesus. Then made up that was killed. Made up that he rose from the dead. Made up that he came and talked with you. Made up that he said go and preach to everyone repentance and forgiveness of sin.

Then after spreading this massive lie everywhere to everyone, and somehow having your own lie match up with everyone else's lie about this mythical non-existent Jesus, you are beaten, tortured, stoned, and given an ultimatum: Deny Jesus, or die. And you think, 'well I always wanted to be killed for a completely made up fairy tale', and so you refuse and are killed. Does this seem likely to you?

People martyr themselves for things that are real to them but imaginary to the rest of us. Do the suicide bombers convince you that Allah rewards them as they believe? Don't you think that the Muslims REALLY believe what they say? Many of them have died at the hands of Christians because they wouldn't renounce THEIR religion--DOES THAT MAKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TRUE?

If Peter, Paul, Luke, et al, really existed, we don't have any idea what they saw or what they believed. The writings attributed to them, and the stories of their lives are complete fabrications as far as I can tell, there does not seem to be any proof that all the stuff written about them or by them is true. Maybe Peter got crucified upside down, the Romans did that to a lot of people, there's nothing to say that it was because of Peter's real or imagined relationship with the real or imagined person "Jesus".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are a number listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

as well as a discussion of the merits the theory that He did not exist. One paragraph says it all:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[76]

But you knew that since most of your criticisms came from that source. Do you believe only the parts you like?

Wikipedia is not a real source, it's a compendium of popular articles--some true, some false. There are real scholarly sources to which you could refer and those sources would help your credibility considerably.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I also have a hard time believing that the prevailing positive view on the historicity of Jesus is based solely on the absence of evidence that he did not exist.

One cannot prove a negative, if Jesus was never mentioned in any book, it still wouldn't prove that He didn't exist.

To date however, there is little or nothing to prove that Jesus ever existed or that He did any of the things attributed to Him.