Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Minimalist]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true for very rare events.

Wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It most assuredly is evidence of absence.

[Lion IRC]

There's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
There's plenty of evidence that people who came into contact with Him actually believed they had seen miracles.

The atheist can try to argue those people were mistaken in what they saw but not... that there was never anything to see.

[Atom]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true for very rare events.

Wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It most assuredly is evidence of absence.

It is true in this case, we are discussing very rare events.
I'll have to think about what you are saying. I'm thinking there's some equivocation in our terms. Regardless it applies in this case.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true for very rare events.

Wrong. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It most assuredly is evidence of absence.

Quite right. However,a complete absence of evidence does suggest actual absence, which is usually the case.

There are actually shiploads of evidence for such things as say the validity of Christianity.

What there is not is any CREDIBLE evidence or proof,as far as I'm aware.

[greneknight]

There's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
There's plenty of evidence that people actually believed they had seen miracles.

The atheist can argue those people were mistaken in what they saw but not... that there was nothing to see.

As a fundamentalist of the US kind, you obviously don't accept the claims of RC miracles such as the sightings of the Virgin Mary. But if you check the newspapers a long time ago, there were reportedly tens of thousands of RCs who claim to have seen the sighting of Mary in Fatima, Portugal just as the three young village kids said they would.

Superstitious people will claim to have seen all kinds of rubbish. What happened 2000 years ago is worse. There were more superstitious people in those days. From the report of St Matthew's gospel, they even claimed that upon Jesus' death, MANY people were raised from the dead and they went to town and were seen by a huge number of people. But nobody believes that sort of rubbish these days. Even the fundiest fundamentalist from the Cathedral of St Fundy of Fundyland can't possibly believe that part of St Matthew was true and actually happened.

[FallentoReason]

There's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
There's plenty of evidence that people who came into contact with Him actually believed they had seen miracles.

The atheist can try to argue those people were mistaken in what they saw but not... that there was never anything to see.

This again...

Show us evidence for Jesus' existence. Let me get you started: no contemporary mentions. On top of that, Philo who was a contemporary Jewish says nothing about him.

Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articl...tory.htm#9

The perfect man for the job has nothing to say about Jesus. There's another 4-5 contemporaries like Philo that I know of who also were the perfect candidates but say nothing. This should be enough for you to chew on for now.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Even the fundiest fundamentalist from the Cathedral of St Fundy of Fundyland can't possibly believe that part of St Matthew was true and actually happened.

Would you like to make a bet?

grene; your argument is based on logical fallacy; "argument from incredulity"

The clip below is NOT satire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination

[Minimalist]

I'll have to think about what you are saying. I'm thinking there's some equivocation in our terms. Regardless it applies in this case.

Then I'll give you a hard example.

Fundies claim that "David" conquered a vast empire in the 10th century. Leaving aside the fact that none of the people conquered seem to know anything about it, archaeologists have dug down to bedrock in Jerusalem and failed to find any evidence of a grand city. What they have found is consistent with a miserable little village. Further, surveys of Judah have shown that the entire was a poverty-stricken region of 15-20,000 nomadic herders with just a handful of miniscule settlements. What they have not found is any evidence of a society which could conceivably "conquer" a large empire. They lacked the resources in men and materiel.

There is thus a complete absence of evidence for any "Davidic Empire." I submit this is evidence that such an empire was a later concoction of writers seeking to give the country a glorious history.

The reason that it is not considered definitive is that in archaeology it is always possible that the next shovel in the ground will find missing evidence.

It seems unlikely, though.

---

Pad, someone should tell that jerkoff that his hand fits around his dick, too.

[greneknight]

Even the fundiest fundamentalist from the Cathedral of St Fundy of Fundyland can't possibly believe that part of St Matthew was true and actually happened.

Would you like to make a bet?

grene; your argument is based on logical fallacy; "argument from incredulity"

The clip below is NOT satire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

This is ridiculous. You can pick any video from youtube. There are all kinds of people who post all kinds of videos. If you expect me to believe that chap with the banana is a real fundy, you probably take me for a 3 year old.

The video is so stupid I have no doubt it was made by an atheist or someone who wants to make fun of fundies.

But really, if that guy is a real fundy, he ought to be locked up in a lunatic home for the rest of his life. But the chap seated next to him seems to be laughing so I'm sure the whole thing is one big stupid joke.

[Jackalope]

Grene - that's Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, genuine fundies. While they claim today that the original argument for design was satire, and satirize it today, that was only after it was pointed out to them that cultivated bananas are selectively bred for traits they claimed were evidence of divine design.

In any case, whether that particular claim ever was non-satirical, those two jokes have put out a number of equally kooky videos.