The question that shatters faith, forever.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is also Xenophone. That's two more than Jesus.

I wouldn't consider Xenophon any more authoritative than Josephus, but that is a matter of opinion. And it depends on how you count sources. The gospel according to John comes from an independent tradition than the other texts.

Besides, Socrates being a mythical figure does not detract from his purported teachings. Jesus being one does so greatly.
[/quote]
The effect on teachings is not at issue. The OP suggests that without historical support Christianity falls apart. So by what standard do we conclude that Jesus did not exist? If we say it is reasonable to believe Socrates existed based on the number and quality of the sources, then it would also be reasonable to say that Jesus existed.

[Minimalist]

The OP suggests that without historical support Christianity falls apart.

There is a bit more to it than that. To quote H. L. Mencken:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

So, at step one we need some historical reference to an actual person and then they need some evidence that he came back from the dead...and rose to heaven and all that stuff. They have actual evidence for neither but it is not too much to ask that they demonstrate that there was such a person to then meet condition #2.

Again, these are burdens that we did not hand them. They are stuck with them because of their own beliefs.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The OP suggests that without historical support Christianity falls apart.

There is a bit more to it than that. To quote H. L. Mencken:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

So, at step one we need some historical reference to an actual person and then they need some evidence that he came back from the dead...and rose to heaven and all that stuff. They have actual evidence for neither but it is not too much to ask that they demonstrate that there was such a person to then meet condition #2.

Again, these are burdens that we did not hand them. They are stuck with them because of their own beliefs.

Once again, the OP said nothing about the resurrection. You are moving away from the topic. Many here claim that Jesus never existed.

That is merely an opinion based on a judgement of the number of sources and the quality of those sources needed to assert that as a fact. In order to be consistent, the person making the claim that Jesus did not exist must apply the same standards to other figures of ancient history, like Socrates.

I'm already anticipating the retort about, "extra-ordinary claims having a higher burden of proof." So I want to remind everyone that the central question is focused entirely on whether Jesus was an historical figure or not. It has nothing to do with legends surrounding the man.

[Minimalist]

Many here claim that Jesus never existed.

There is no evidence for his existence.

I keep asking.... they keep trotting out their same silly gospel shit.

But it is not the "man" that they worship.... it is the magic tricks. Without his magic tricks, jesus would just be another jew.

[LiberalHearted]

Many here claim that Jesus never existed.

There is no evidence for his existence.

I keep asking.... they keep trotting out their same silly gospel shit.

But it is not the "man" that they worship.... it is the magic tricks. Without his magic tricks, jesus would just be another jew.

Isn't this worship ongoing throughout mythical history though? Exactly how many Resurrection Myths are there? Since the on start of first 'near thought' pre science and evidence based criteria. Humans very early humans needed an explanation. Fear continues this old explanation and all reason evacuates the brain.

Miss ya Min.

[Drich]

What I used to think was that there's this God out there that was perfect. I knew He was because His way of communicating with us was done perfectly. He sent Himself to earth and did things that changed the course of history. These things could be read about in the New Testament and since it's historically flawless it means the idea of God flows perfectly from the supernatural to reality. I didn't have a problem with this.

The problem that arose eventually was this: there's two sides to this. The first is the idea of this God and his son Jesus. Then you have all the humans involved with this God that had the responsibility of handing down the information. What I observe is that the two ends do not meet. There's a gap between the content of the gospels and reality.

For example, take the wikipedia extract that I've quoted. Firstly, this shows the author wasn't a witness because he just based his writings on what was already available. Secondly, the author of Matthew decided to beef up Mark with supernatural content. The fact that Matthew came second gives no credibility to the supernatural. These are the sorts of wrinkles that start to form a gap between the Bible and true human history.

Respectfully, so what?

Bottom line if you choose to worship the God of the bible then it is not your responsibility for the content of said bible. It is His responsibility especially given the fact the bible says nothing can be added or taken from this book. At that point Content is no longer your concern neither is how it was compiled. IF you worship and praise the God Of The Bible.

Only a weak impotent God has no control over what is in his Holy book and has no way of effecting change. If God wants something changed then we find a cache like the dead sea scrolls or in the End the Same forgiveness He extends to cover the willful sin and evils of man, He will have to also extend the same forgiveness for man's best effort to Worship Him by the Only Holy book He has given us.

I know where you're coming from but you can't just be so wishful as to think that everything recorded happened as a consequence of what Jesus was doing. The very fact that no one that wrote the gospels even saw Jesus means not only do I need faith in god, but I have to have faith that Jesus was a real person. That's already a huge blow to the credibility of the Christian god.

Are you not familiar with the Gospel of John or Matthew?

[Minimalist]

Miss ya Min.

Hey, Sweetie, how the hell have you been? Spot my breadcrumbs over at JNE?

[LiberalHearted]

What I used to think was that there's this God out there that was perfect. I knew He was because His way of communicating with us was done perfectly. He sent Himself to earth and did things that changed the course of history. These things could be read about in the New Testament and since it's historically flawless it means the idea of God flows perfectly from the supernatural to reality. I didn't have a problem with this.

The problem that arose eventually was this: there's two sides to this. The first is the idea of this God and his son Jesus. Then you have all the humans involved with this God that had the responsibility of handing down the information. What I observe is that the two ends do not meet. There's a gap between the content of the gospels and reality.

For example, take the wikipedia extract that I've quoted. Firstly, this shows the author wasn't a witness because he just based his writings on what was already available. Secondly, the author of Matthew decided to beef up Mark with supernatural content. The fact that Matthew came second gives no credibility to the supernatural. These are the sorts of wrinkles that start to form a gap between the Bible and true human history.

Respectfully, so what?

Bottom line if you choose to worship the God of the bible then it is not your responsibility for the content of said bible. It is His responsibility especially given the fact the bible says nothing can be added or taken from this book. At that point Content is no longer your concern neither is how it was compiled. IF you worship and praise the God Of The Bible.

Only a weak impotent God has no control over what is in his Holy book and has no way of effecting change. If God wants something changed then we find a cache like the dead sea scrolls or in the End the Same forgiveness He extends to cover the willful sin and evils of man, He will have to also extend the same forgiveness for man's best effort to Worship Him by the Only Holy book He has given us.

That is the point if you choose NOT to take responsibility of a thought process. Worship blindly then there is NO respect for thinking individuals. Nor others of different faiths.

There are contradictions in this Bible and it's god; that is worshiped - how is that perfect?
ah.....do not question blah blah blah...Coincidence or a weak explanation for thoughtlessness?

Why, in Leviticus the original 'law's was slavery not abolished? Omnipotence is a frame of existence of complete power, omnipresent always there (feeling the pain of the slaves down the centuries?) What's missing? Oh Omnipercipient able to perceive everything.

Why is that perception thing missing from this all perfect all knowing example of mythology?

Respectfully, you can and have the freedom to do what you wish.

Yet, asking someone to respect you when what you say is disrespectful to a thinking person, why and what makes you different?

[mediamogul]

The OP suggests that without historical support Christianity falls apart.

There is a bit more to it than that. To quote H. L. Mencken:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

So, at step one we need some historical reference to an actual person and then they need some evidence that he came back from the dead...and rose to heaven and all that stuff. They have actual evidence for neither but it is not too much to ask that they demonstrate that there was such a person to then meet condition #2.

Again, these are burdens that we did not hand them. They are stuck with them because of their own beliefs.

Once again, the OP said nothing about the resurrection. You are moving away from the topic. Many here claim that Jesus never existed.

That is merely an opinion based on a judgement of the number of sources and the quality of those sources needed to assert that as a fact. In order to be consistent, the person making the claim that Jesus did not exist must apply the same standards to other figures of ancient history, like Socrates.

I'm already anticipating the retort about, "extra-ordinary claims having a higher burden of proof." So I want to remind everyone that the central question is focused entirely on whether Jesus was an historical figure or not. It has nothing to do with legends surrounding the man.

But lets call it what it is. Fundamentally different claims are being made regarding Jesus than are being made regarding Socrates. Attributing miracles and supernatural events to a person neccessarily alters our ability to verify the events. It is drawn then into the realm of mythology which is fundamentally different than the claims being made regarding Socrates which is more a question of "did he say and do what Plato said he did". The things that Plato claimed Socrates did were the actions of a human being living in the natural world governed by the laws of physics as we know them. So I do believe that fundamentally different claims are being made about the two. It is not a fair comparison. It is more comparable to the story of Siddhartha Guatama (the alleged Buddha) than to Socrates.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But did Socrates truly exist?