(March 31, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There had to be 100 guys named  "jesus, son of joseph" in first century Judaea.  They were both common names.

So what?

That's my point, I don't find the case for a historical jesus all that compelling or meaningful.

I'd say it is of utmost importance to science whether there once was a guy who could turn water into wine.

Quote:So you're willing to allow that historians writing 200-300 years after the event can cite reliable testimony but you don't allow testimony in the context of a religious movement that is purporting to write about a person who lived within the last 20-80 years?

Yes, because THEY are citing their sources...some of whom actually were with Alex. More than that, what is their agenda? They are relating history they were not trying to create a god cult based on Alexander. Xtian writers never seem to lose sight of the propagandistic mission. They are trying to convince the gullible that their godboy was real. Alex was real. His body was preserved in Alexandria until the 4th century AD and everyone knew it.

Where is your boy? Oh, right. He flew up to the sky. Just like "Romulus."

You have yet to present any sort of reliable testimony. Xtian propaganda does not cut it.

(March 31, 2015 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So you're willing to allow that historians writing 200-300 years after the event can cite reliable testimony but you don't allow testimony in the context of a religious movement that is purporting to write about a person who lived within the last 20-80 years?

Yes, because THEY are citing their sources...some of whom actually were with Alex.  More than that, what is their agenda?  They are relating history they were not trying to create a god cult based on Alexander.  Xtian writers never seem to lose sight of the propagandistic mission.  They are trying to convince the gullible that their godboy was real.  Alex was real.  His body was preserved in Alexandria until the 4th century AD and everyone knew it.

Where is your boy?  Oh, right.  He flew up to the sky.  Just like "Romulus."

You have yet to present any sort of reliable testimony.  Xtian propaganda does not cut it.

There is no credible reason in the propagandistic mission of the early Christians that they should claim the Messiah to be from a town called Nazareth, with a mother named Mary and a carpenter father named Joseph, with brothers and sisters, baptized by John the Baptist, and then brutally dehumanized by Roman crucifixion. If your goal is to make a god cult that will appeal to either Jews or Greeks, these are not the elements you would choose to include... unless they are facts that you can't get around any other way than that which the NT writers actually attempted to do. Would it make any difference if the writers, instead of saying, "This is what I heard and saw" had said, "This is what I heard from so-and-so at place X and time Y"? Not unless we have better reasons to trust so-and-so over the writers themselves, which would be impossible since the writers themselves are our sources of the claims. With "Jeez" we have people conveying information that they obtained by revelation, but like "Alex," also from those whom they alleged knew Jesus, even one close enough to be repeatedly distinguished as Jesus' brother. If your justification for believing that Jesus didn't exist lies in the facts that his body wasn't reproduced after his alleged crucifixion, and that people came to develop mythological and theological explanations for this traumatic event, consider me unpersuaded.

(March 31, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 31, 2015 at 6:51 pm)Cephus Wrote: But I have no problem saying that we don't have good evidence for many people from antiquity.  Some have suggested that Socrates was just an invention of Plato, others have suggested that Plato and Aristotle might not have been real.  It doesn't matter because the ideas that have come down to us  today are important, no matter who actually came up with them in the first place.  However, that isn't the case with Jesus.  For Christianity to matter at all, Jesus had to physically exist as a man-god.  You can take whatever lessons you want from the Bible, some are good, some are really awful, but without a real Jesus, the religion based on him falls apart entirely.  

If you want to deny the existence of Aristotle or Alexander the Great, knock yourself out.  It really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.

It doesn't make much of a difference to me either except that it isn't in the interest of critical thought to just say, "Oh, to hell with what experts think, I don't care. Thus, X." That Christianity falls apart if Jesus didn't exist isn't really relevant unless we want to go the other direction in understanding why there about six historians in the field who take that position; even so, one can be a Christian and believe the New Testament was inspired mythology or something, so it only falls apart for those whose investment in his historicity is essential to their faith, and that's not the case with me. Nor should it be the case with anyone interested in the truth, and while I agree that ideas are far more important than the person who espoused them, attacking faith going the mythicist route discredits the attacker.

The "experts" are only experts insofar as they agree with what the evidence says.  Someone with a Ph.D in physics is only valid so long as they say things in keeping with the evidence behind physics.  This is why I've pointed out that all of the creationists with advanced degrees don't mean a thing because they are saying things that violate the understanding of and evidence for their sciences.  If the experts have no evidence, it doesn't matter what their opinion is, they still have no evidence.  The Argument from Authority is a fallacy for a reason.

Quote: There is no credible reason in the propagandistic mission of the early Christians that they should claim the Messiah to be from a town called Nazareth, with a mother named Mary and a carpenter father named Joseph, with brothers and sisters, baptized by John the Baptist, and then brutally dehumanized by Roman crucifixion.

In YOUR opinion.  But then, you aren't the guy who invented this bullshit, are you?

(March 31, 2015 at 2:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: ... is like saying Gandalf is based on some old dude with a beard...

General Robert Nivelle, a French military commander during the First World War, during the Battle of Verdun, rallied his troops with the legendary cry,

"They! Shall! Not! Pass!"

Viola! The historical Gandalf! 

(March 31, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Cephus Wrote: The Argument from Authority is a fallacy for a reason.

Eh, not quite. It's not a fallacy to say, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 99% of experts in the relevant field also believe X about Jesus." You're probably thinking about the fallacy known as Appeal to Unqualified Authority, which would be more like, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 70% of marine biologists also believe X about Jesus," a fallacy I have not committed.

(March 31, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: I'd say it is of utmost importance to science  whether there once was a guy who could turn water into wine.

I have seen the trick of turning water into wine, performed just like Jesus' supposed miracle, with the only exception being that the containers were of different material.  In the story, the substance is poured from container to another, which is just what a magician would do, to create the illusion of something changing.


I think we can be reasonably certain that someone involved in the story saw a magic trick, but that does not tell us whether the story is based upon a particular individual, or on general experience with people doing tricks.


By the way, in my earlier post # 38 at:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32446-po...#pid911625

I should have mentioned that I think that Nestor is absolutely correct, that one should view the existence of Jesus exactly as one views the existence of other ancient people.  The exact same standards of evidence should apply, and the exact same suspicions should apply, in all cases.

(March 31, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: I'd say it is of utmost importance to science  whether there once was a guy who could turn water into wine.

All humans are capable of turning wine to water . . .