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.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

Indeed.

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 do not favour any view that has no rational justification but more to the point, given the nature of belief, each and every claim that is made by them should be critically examined ... they (and you) have failed to make a convincing case for the physical existence of Jesus whilst I and ChatPilot can simply sit back and say, "Show me the money".

1Unless 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.

That would apply to you as well so it really is a rather pointless observation.

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

I'm not claiming he didn't so it's up to you to prove it if that's your position ... I don't need to do a damned thing.

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

I didn't imply you said anything about Tacitus.

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

Say that again in Wigglish?

Kyu

[chatpilot]

I agree Mark no sense beating a dead horse.This argument for or against the existence of an historical Christ is going nowhere.

[Mark]

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.

Indeed.

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 do not favour any view that has no rational justification but more to the point, given the nature of belief, each and every claim that is made by them should be critically examined ... they (and you) have failed to make a convincing case for the physical existence of Jesus whilst I and ChatPilot can simply sit back and say, "Show me the money".

Do you see that an entirely different evidentiary standard is being proposed in these two sections? In the first we have the question, "Which proposition accords better with the given set of records and with everything else that we know about history?" In the second we have a juridical notion that if X can't be proved to be certainly true, it must be taken as false. It is only the first standard of proof that is meaningful for discussions of history, particularly that of the First Century A.D. The study of history wouldn't get very far if the second standard were customarily applied to its propositions.

Of course if you insist on the second standard and and you assume that the burden of proof falls upon those who would assert Jesus' existence, then you can sit back in triumphant surety that the available evidence dosn't meet your evidentiary standard and, ergo, Jesus did not exist. That is a rather barren and self-justifying position, however, since very little that is widely supposed to have happened in history, particularly in ancient times, can be proven with certainty to have happened. And since I have already conceded that it is possible that Jesus did not exist, I wonder why you even bother to post replies.

The fact is, the claim that Jesus did not exist can't be made with any more certainty than the claim that he did. There is no burden of proof on either side; there is no default conclusion that some person did not exist if the evidence that he did is a little shaky; the only thing it comes down to is the balance of likelihood, and that is the basis on which I have argued here.

Further it appears necessary to point out that it is you, not I, that has personally attempted a textual analysis of Josephus, namely when you assert that you can tell from your English edition there that the disputed passage is not in Josephus' style. So it is your qualifications as a textual analyst and putative expert in classical Greek, not mine, that are relevant here.

Lastly if you read back, you will see that you did assert that there was evidence of Jesus' non-existence; but it appears now that that was a mere misstatement, so it contents me if you have abandoned it.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh so you do see a point in continuing the discussion? So be it.

Do you see that an entirely different evidentiary is being proposed in these two sections? In the first we have the question, "Which proposition accords better with the given set of records and with everything else that we know about history?" In the second we have a juridical notion that if X can't be proved to be certainly true, it must be taken as false. It is only the first standard of proof that is meaningful for discussions of history, particularly that of the First Century A.D. The study of history wouldn't get very far if the second standard were customarily applied to its propositions. I have already conceded that it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

Not really ... it's a simple enough concept, the person making the claim must reasonably justify the same. Now given that there are two, apparently equally valid, explanations one supported by indirect (non eye-witness) evidence and the other an assumptive position based on the lack of evidence and the flawed nature of some of the claimed evidence it is quite obvious (to me) which is the superior explanation.

Of course if you insist on the second standard and and you assume that the burden of proof falls upon those who would assert Jesus' existence, then you can sit back in triumphant surety that nobody can possibly meet your evidentiary standard and, ergo, Jesus did not exist. That is a rather hollow position, however, since very little that is widely supposed to have happened in history, particularly in ancient times, can be proven with certainty to have happened.

You seem to think we want absolute proof ... not at all but something more substantial than wishful thinking, accounts written decades (sometimes centuries) after the claimed event and faked up evidence would be nice.

Lastly it appears necessary to point out that it is you, not I, that has personally attempted a textual analysis of Josephus, namely when you assert that you can tell from your English edition there that the disputed passage is not in Josephus' style. So it is your qualifications as a textual analyst and putative expert in classical Greek, not mine, are relevant here.

A view that is backed up by historians ... not trying to be funny here Marky Mark but if we genuinely weren't able to make our own reasonable assessments of information made available to us from various sources then why the frakk would anyone ever write a textbook?

And if you read back, you will see that you did assert that there was evidence of Jesus' non-existence; but it appears now that that was a mere misstatement.

Actually I cited a LACK of evidence plus several major evidences apparently faked ... get it right please. The truth is I have no idea whether there was a was not a Jesus Christ but I choose to assume not because that is the same position I would take if someone were to make an unsupported claim in science.

NOTE: You appear to have edited your original reply in the time I replied to it ... no real idea what changes you made and TBBH I can't be bothered to figure it out.

Kyu

[Mark]

Oh so you do see a point in continuing the discussion? So be it.

Yes, I wanted to tie up a few loose ends, and especially to point out that the standard of evidence that you seek to apply to this question is not customarily or usefully applied to questions of ancient, or indeed not-so-ancient history.

Having done that I have nothing more to say, except that I will thank you in future never to refer to me with a diminutive such as "Marky Mark," which I consider to be an insulting deprecation. I wish I could say that this discussion has been pleasant, but in fact there has been a subtext of hostility in your remarks that has been decidedly off-putting.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, I wanted to tie up a few loose ends, and especially to point out that the standard of evidence that you seek to apply to this question is not customarily or usefully applied to questions of ancient, or indeed not-so-ancient history.

Nor are yours.

Having done that I have nothing more to say, except that I will thank you in future never to refer to me with a diminutive such as "Marky Mark," which I consider to be an insulting deprecation. I wish I could say that this discussion has been pleasant, but in fact there has been a subtext of hostility in your remarks that has been decidedly off-putting.

Firstly I will not call you that again (and I apologise for doing so).

Secondly no, no hostility and TBBH I think people that claim things like that in discussions like this are either deluded or seeking to somehow trounce the other person by appealing to public sympathy. If you want to see hostility look at the way politicians debate or the way they slag each other off in the entertainment arena ... that's gross, that's really insulting (and not just to my mentality) ... this, this kind of discussion is absolutely nothing compared to arenas like that.

If you genuinely think I was really hostile then I can only conclude you have led a very, very sheltered life.

Kyu

[Wacko's chimp]

Are there any atheist here that believe Jesus did not exist?

I think he existed, but I just don't believe he was born of a virgin, that his father was god, and I believe that his miracles are myths.

I just want to see if any atheists believe that he was never even a real person.

I reckon someone who claimed to be the son of god existed. What i wonder about is what did he think he was.
Did he get told he was the messiah and then went with it or was he a con-man?