Historicity of Jesus

[robvalue]

The thing is, what does it even mean to say it was "based on" someone? You could start off with any guy called jesus around that time, any one you like, and then just completely invent his whole life from there. And considering nothing was put to paper until well after he was supposedly dead, this seems very much the most likely explanation. So really, "jesus" is anyone you like. I feel mythicisists and mooters aren't that different. Mythicising a whole life story is what has happened, either way.

[Mudhammam]

Well, it's possible everything was made up out of thin air though I tend to find many features of early Christian belief more difficult to understand on that view. Why have him hailing from Nazareth at all? Why have him baptized by John? Why have him, the Jewish Messiah, crucified?? I know mythicists have answers for these but...I don't think they're convincing.

[Stealth]

I predict this thread will become Brucer's temporary new home. As for the subject, well, I could care less. I doubt he was real at all, but if he was then I still don't care. It doesn't concern me. Never has and never will.

Oh, I'm talking about his existence as some random dude, not as the magical fig tree hating water walker.

The history of a being that has been influencing people for 2000 years doesn't interest you? Due to lack of written script at the time of him/them, does that give you the dis-concern?

I will make it clear that religion has now importance to me, as does anti-theism. But to turn away from obvious truths, you could say the same for Xerxes (the king, not god), or even Julius Caesar.

[dyresand]

I predict this thread will become Brucer's temporary new home. As for the subject, well, I could care less. I doubt he was real at all, but if he was then I still don't care. It doesn't concern me. Never has and never will.

Oh, I'm talking about his existence as some random dude, not as the magical fig tree hating water walker.

The history of a being that has been influencing people for 2000 years doesn't interest you? Due to lack of written script at the time of him/them, does that give you the dis-concern?

I will make it clear that religion has now importance to me, as does anti-theism. But to turn away from obvious truths, you could say the same for Xerxes (the king, not god), or even Julius Caesar.

It only really works because people keep saying it and well historians are pretty much at the point and are saying could have meaning no the guy didn't exist.

[Minimalist]

While there are thousands of historians who accept the historical existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, I believe there about six mythicists... yes, six (or something like that).

I get so tired of that routine. I don't give a shit how many "historians" agree I want to see the evidence. When you can get one of them to talk about the 'evidence' it turns out to be the same old shit, the gospels. Then they use the late writings to "support" the gospels! It is all one big circle jerk.

The desperation to seize on to Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny is driven by the fact that they need something to show that their boy exists in more than one book. Sadly, they are of no help to the jesus freaks in that regard.

[pocaracas]

There were hundreds of men named Y'shua in first century Judaea. There had to be as it was a very common name.

How can we, nowadays, tell if it was a common name?

[abaris]

How can we, nowadays, tell if it was a common name?

Inscriptions on caskets is one of the ways. There are virtually thousands of them in Israeli museums.

[polar bear]

I never heard that! Thanks!!!

[pocaracas]

How can we, nowadays, tell if it was a common name?

Inscriptions on caskets is one of the ways. There are virtually thousands of them in Israeli museums.

ah.... I see...
I wonder why the bible doesn't mention the carving of the name on JC's casket/tomb?
Was it a practice only the wealthy could afford?

[polar bear]

A wealthy man paid for his tomb so it should have been done either way