A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

[Pyrrho]

Fair enough. I've not studied any of these other historical characters, so I can't comment on how the evidence stacks up.

It depends on who we are talking about. In the case of Socrates, we have actual evidence of his existence (three people who knew him wrote about him, which is exceptional evidence for a man of his era), despite the fact that he is not supposed to be nearly as important, and the fact that he lived hundreds of years earlier than Jesus supposedly lived. So belief in the existence of Socrates is obviously more supported than belief in the existence of Jesus.

Also, the level of evidence needs to fit with what one would expect for the time and place. For example, one naturally should expect there to be more evidence for the existence of, say, Richard Nixon, than for George Washington. This is because of the existence of photography in the one era and not the other, and for many other such reasons. And, of course, we would expect more evidence for the existence of George Washington, than for a random contemporary of his, who is not famous. People who are considered important tend to have more evidence of their existence than private persons; if, that is, they really both existed.

Additionally, with many people, their existence or nonexistence is not very important to people. If I say I believe that Thales existed, I am not really invested in the idea too much. It does not matter much if he did or did not. Certainly, the evidence for Thales' existence is less than that for Socrates' existence. A proper attitude, then, is to be more certain that Socrates existed than that Thales existed. Of course, being earlier, there would naturally be less evidence for Thales than Socrates, and so that, too, should be considered.

We may also say that the nature of the writings make a good deal of difference for how credible they are. Or, in other words, not all books or writings are equally credible. Some people write as gullible fools, and so they are far less trustworthy than those who show care and discernment in their judgments. Basically, a book of magical BS is less trustworthy than one that tells things that are inherently plausible, if all else is equal.

There is more, but this should get one started in thinking about the matter.

[Exian]

We're bumping the Jesus threads!? I'm gonna need three more months of stinky pinky and never ending story to cleanse my palate again.

[Pyrrho]

Josephus = utter arse

I don't consider that evidence of anything other than the lengths xianity will go to in order to push their agenda.

Scholars pretty much agree that Christians added to his text, evidently for the purpose of providing "independent evidence" of Jesus' existence, and so it is of little value in supporting the existence of Jesus. And the fact that Christians did alter the text is evidence that one needs to be suspicious of writings purporting to show that Jesus existed, since Christians have proven themselves dishonest in promoting their "holy" cause.

[Cato]

Kama Sutra development.

You seem to have forgotten one of the key parts of the OP:

... you do not interact with these figures, just observe ...

You may as well just watch porn on the internet, if just watching satisfies you.

I did not forget. Most everyone else is going back to watch goat fuckers. I'm simply trying to keep it within the species.

[dyresand]

I've thought of this scenario, and I'm just interested to hear out different thoughts. It sounds a bit strange, but I am genuinely interested so hear me out.

Imagine there was something which could take you back in time so you could observe the formation of any of the religions in the world today or 'dead' religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) and you'd be an unseen observer, nobody else can see you and you do not interact with these figures, just observe, which religion would you want to see?

Would you want to see the formation of Christianity from the time of Jesus? Or the inception of Islam from Mohammed? Etc. You can only pick one.

I would put a end to the axis of evil of abrahamic religions at its sources.

[Minimalist]

Zeus had an amazing effect on the Greeks? Did he exist? It's just special pleading without actual evidence.

This exact quote is directly tackled and debunked in the link I posted, 2nd page.

Actually I do not see such a reference and I did a search for the word "pleading" on the page but I did find this from Mr. O'Neill.

Exactly. We know of Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan Prophet and several others solely from Josephus. Yet no-one questions their historicity. We know of Jesus from Josephus and several other sources and yet we're told he is "invisible to history"? WTF?

If he accepts the TF as authentic then he is a schmuck.

[Pyrrho]

This exact quote is directly tackled and debunked in the link I posted, 2nd page.

Actually I do not see such a reference and I did a search for the word "pleading" on the page but I did find this from Mr. O'Neill.

Exactly. We know of Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan Prophet and several others solely from Josephus. Yet no-one questions their historicity. We know of Jesus from Josephus and several other sources and yet we're told he is "invisible to history"? WTF?

If he accepts the TF as authentic then he is a schmuck.

What do you expect from someone who simply posts a link to a thread with over 36 thousand posts and says the answer is there, without bothering to give anything here that is substantial, or even to direct us to a specific post among those many thousands of posts? Not to mention the fact that the posts themselves have links to other things, some of which are quite lengthy?

What we have here is a kind of fallacy involving overwhelming one's opponents in an argument with excessive verbiage and not bothering with clearly stating the relevant bits. If he were serious in trying to communicate with us, he is doing a very poor job of it. But it is clear enough that he has nothing real to say, or he would simply say it.

[Cinjin]

If he accepts the TF as authentic then he is a schmuck.

I'm of the same school of thought that Min is here.

Ok, to be fair there is a tiny bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ....
But its such a scant amount: It's circumstantial at best and it would never hold up in any respectable court of law.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if you did get that time machine and you were able to go back to the year 30AD, you'd be damned disappointed at your godboy. At best you'd find a dirty hippy living off the stupidity of the goat herders who didn't even go by the name of Jesus and was more interested in getting fed for selling bull shit than he was in holding down an honest job.

So I guess the answer to your OP is: Can I give the time machine to a devout christard and send him back to the time of the silly fairy tale?

[vorlon13]

Topic raises a larger question of how, for instance, Nostradamus 'viewed' the future. Hovering over the earth's surface at 500' altitude isn't going to give him the information he needs to accurately generate a quatrain. Nor will walking around at random work either; if he is wandering the streets of Bombay on the day of Lincoln's assassination, that isn't going to be very helpful. He needs a mechanism or guide of some kind to home in on those events. How does he figure out the correct day and hour to be in Sarajevo to see Archduke Ferdinand shot, and how does he know it's important at the time with out also experiencing, somehow, the next several years? Archduke Ferdinand, for all Nostradamus knows at the time, might be on his way to a masquerade ball.

So to, with Jesus, for instance.

When are you going back ? You'll need to study Jewish lunar calendars for possibly 20 years to get target dates, and then to be sure, you're going to have to watch ALL of the crucifixions around ALL those dates, and somehow, discern (without knowing the languages you can hear, or being able to read the words you see) what the fuck is going on and who is doing it, and to whom they are doing it to. You will have to evaluate ALL the crucifixions and see if even one is remotely close in particulars to the one you're interested in. You're going to be back then for a LENGTHY and frustrating visit.

If Jesus is a composite character, based a % on a real person(s) and derived a % from historical persons and extrapolated from a % of expected characteristics of a 'plausible' messiah, you're still going to have to convince all of us when you get back that you snagged the RIGHT one, and that that one is in fact, consistent with Jewish prophecy (something bible Jesus isn't fully noted as being, btw) and then you are somehow going to have to extrapolate from the stiff on the cross you picked from all the candidates you examined, that he somehow confirms the god (and holy spook) you are expecting to find, and convince us of that too, somehow.

[Ravenshire]

Why would I want to watch religion when I could travel several million years back and see some dinosaurs?

Or, go back just a couple decades and off the bastard that created "reality" TV before he creates it.

Oops. Never mind. Can't interact... Shit!

Ok then. Mithras. I wouldn't mind watching the Mithras myth unfold.