Existence of Jesus

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh so you do see a point in continuing the discussion? So be it.

Do you see that an entirely different evidentiary is being proposed in these two sections? In the first we have the question, "Which proposition accords better with the given set of records and with everything else that we know about history?" In the second we have a juridical notion that if X can't be proved to be certainly true, it must be taken as false. It is only the first standard of proof that is meaningful for discussions of history, particularly that of the First Century A.D. The study of history wouldn't get very far if the second standard were customarily applied to its propositions. I have already conceded that it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

Not really ... it's a simple enough concept, the person making the claim must reasonably justify the same. Now given that there are two, apparently equally valid, explanations one supported by indirect (non eye-witness) evidence and the other an assumptive position based on the lack of evidence and the flawed nature of some of the claimed evidence it is quite obvious (to me) which is the superior explanation.

Of course if you insist on the second standard and and you assume that the burden of proof falls upon those who would assert Jesus' existence, then you can sit back in triumphant surety that nobody can possibly meet your evidentiary standard and, ergo, Jesus did not exist. That is a rather hollow position, however, since very little that is widely supposed to have happened in history, particularly in ancient times, can be proven with certainty to have happened.

You seem to think we want absolute proof ... not at all but something more substantial than wishful thinking, accounts written decades (sometimes centuries) after the claimed event and faked up evidence would be nice.

Lastly it appears necessary to point out that it is you, not I, that has personally attempted a textual analysis of Josephus, namely when you assert that you can tell from your English edition there that the disputed passage is not in Josephus' style. So it is your qualifications as a textual analyst and putative expert in classical Greek, not mine, are relevant here.

A view that is backed up by historians ... not trying to be funny here Marky Mark but if we genuinely weren't able to make our own reasonable assessments of information made available to us from various sources then why the frakk would anyone ever write a textbook?

And if you read back, you will see that you did assert that there was evidence of Jesus' non-existence; but it appears now that that was a mere misstatement.

Actually I cited a LACK of evidence plus several major evidences apparently faked ... get it right please. The truth is I have no idea whether there was a was not a Jesus Christ but I choose to assume not because that is the same position I would take if someone were to make an unsupported claim in science.

NOTE: You appear to have edited your original reply in the time I replied to it ... no real idea what changes you made and TBBH I can't be bothered to figure it out.

Kyu