Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Mudhammam]

Expert consensus is evidence for a claims likelihood. We go along with expert consensus all the time, because we don't have the time, resources, and expertise to do it all. The double standards at play are absurd.

Yeah but see *real* skeptics first assume that authors and the names in their narratives represent fictional characters (because religions don't usually start with real people?), then demand evidence that can be ascertained with complete certainty while rejecting the actual materials available, and finally dismiss the critical methods because they don't like a conclusion.

[Minimalist]

I'm saying there is a credible method and evidence that actually exists,

Then where is it because all you guys ever manage to trot out are your fucking gospels.

You do not get to prove a book by quoting from a different part of the same book.

[Mudhammam]

I'm saying there is a credible method and evidence that actually exists,

Then where is it because all you guys ever manage to trot out are your fucking gospels.

You do not get to prove a book by quoting from a different part of the same book.

No you are right. You actually try to look at subtle clues in the structure of the text in a serious effort to give the most probable explanation for what the writer was hoping to achieve, and compare that with other analysis, and of what the author's peers and followers said. 

[Minimalist]

I disagree with your premise but for the sake of argument, how do you know what the "author's peers and followers said" when you do not have any clue who the author may have been?

The names were attached to these otherwise anonymous books in the late 2d century.

[Mudhammam]

I disagree with your premise but for the sake of argument, how do you know what the "author's peers and followers said" when you do not have any clue who the author may have been?

The names were attached to these otherwise anonymous books in the late 2d century.

You note their stylistic differences. You compare events to see what each respective author felt important to include, and how it fits in the picture other authors tried to paint. You examine the linguistic and grammatical components to differentiate the sources that were probably used, then determine based on the expressions and words what text likely preceded the other. You date the sources. You note off-hand remarks and awkward elements the author goes to various lengths to explain. This is just like basic history 101 shit, man. The level of thought displayed by some here, and I don't really include you or DeistPaladin for the most part, is shocking, utterly depressing, and nothing short of anti-scientific. 

[Pizza]

I don't understand what it is they find so unlikely about a historical Jesus existing. We don't have to claim we know everything about the guy's life story to say it's likely he existed. Most historians make modest claims about Jesus, even the respectable ones that are Christians since they know to draw a line between personal faith and historical facts. We aren't talking about what hack apologists pretending to be historians (Gary Habermas, Bill Craig, Mike Licona) say.

[Minimalist]

You note their stylistic differences.

Come on.  We know this stuff has been edited through the centuries.  You not only don't know who wrote them, you have no idea who edited them.

When an archaeologist finds a piece of lapis lazuli in an Egyptian tomb he can postulate a trade route from Afghanistan ( the source ) to Egypt but he does not know the names of the various merchants involved in the transport, nor their nationalities, the price paid, or the total quantity of the cargo, etc..

What I would be satisfied with you is if you would drop the word "objective" from your premise.  There is nothing objective about parroting back xtian propaganda.  Can certain historical facts be determined from reading a book?  Yes.  Which ones do you suggest for the bible?  We already know that it:

a) misstates the Roman practice of crucifixion.
b) invents a non-existent world-wide census.
c) suggests that Herod murdered infants which no other writer knows about...even the ones who despised Herod!
d) claims that Tyre was destroyed and then has "jesus" go there...
etc., etc.

What are these "facts" you are so convinced of?

[Mudhammam]

There are ways to detect interpolations. Multiple copies and attestation by other writers helps. A lot. I know it's inconvenient to your theory but "It makes reference to a flesh and blood person" is not criteria for determining them. One could also compile a list of instances that the Bible gets information that can be corroborated by other sources correct. Stop pretending like this is an uncommon feature of ancient documents.

[Cinjin]

That's only funny because yours was nothing but a rant about my apparent religious devotion and need to believe in Jesus' historicity. Your inability to form cogent remarks relevant to the topic only goes to demonstrate the vacuous nature of your reasoning. Please keep using memes because you're not very good at engaging in thoughtful discussion.

As you wish hot head ...

[Pizza]

"What I would be satisfied with you is if you would drop the word "objective" from your premise.  There is nothing objective about parroting back xtian propaganda."

Stop playing these word games with "objective." Historians critically examine unreliable sources all the time with the methods Nestor said; moreover, as I've already freakin' said before all sources are unreliable to a degree. My eyes are unreliable to a degree, but I don't walk off cliffs. The U.S. news is unreliable to a degree; yet, do I doubt Isis  and the danger of Islamic terrorism are real? If you can't handle extreme degree of uncertainty, then tough shit. The level of black or white reasoning at play here is absurd. I'm tired of repeating myself. 

---

That's only funny because yours was nothing but a rant about my apparent religious devotion and need to believe in Jesus' historicity. Your inability to form cogent remarks relevant to the topic only goes to demonstrate the vacuous nature of your reasoning. Please keep using memes because you're not very good at engaging in thoughtful discussion.

As you wish hot head ...

Do you have something intelligent to add, or you going to just keep spamming the thread with stupid pictures like a stupid 4chan poster?