Existence of Jesus

[Mark]

Etc., etc.

Well, I think we have been around this mulberry bush enough, so I will not rejoin point by point. Others reading all this, if any indeed have the patience for it, will have to judge which of us has made the better case. Fundamentally they will have to decide whether the reports of Jesus and the existence of the Christian religion itself is more compatible with the supposition that Jesus the preacher did exist, or that he did not. In any case it is a question of very scant importance for us as atheists, unless like chatpilot you consider it necessary to bash Christianity as much as possible.

I will however make a few substantive points:

1. Unless you are an expert in textual analysis of classical Greek, and reading in the original language, you really are either incompetent and incapable (depending of which of these two conditions is violated), or both, of issuing an opinion on the degree of consistency between the passage in question and the rest of the work, and it is a bit silly that you have done so.

2. You so far have not supplied the evidence, which is ample according to you, that Jesus the man did not exist.

3. Contrary to your implication, I never said anything about Tacitus, whose account merely shows what people at his time believed.

---

And in my opinion the gospels are not a reliable source of information since I think that Jesus is a fabricated myth perpetuated by the church.

I wonder whether anyone would express such an argument in the actual belief that it was dispositive of anything.