My blog

[robvalue]

Sure. But whatever information Josephus had was hearsay, wouldn't you agree? Is there any reason to think it is more reliable than just what he had heard or been told about events? (Also Josephus' work contains at least one blatant forgery by Christians raising further suspicions).

I've finally got on my website and made improvements to the What is atheism/theism? page and the What atheism is not page, taking into account excellent feedback from Watchamadoodle and Dystopia. Thanks guys! Please let me know if you think it's an improvement Hopefully I've removed all confusion now, and I took into account your observation Watcha regarding the theist mindset.

---

Well... good point, I guess it's a question of definition.

I'm not claiming that I know jesus is mythical, I'm saying I believe it, and I find it the most likely thing. I don't know Harry Potter isn't real either, but I feel the same level of confidence.

Does that make me a mythicist? Or do I have to claim knowledge? Claiming knowledge seems indefensible.

Tell me if this answer makes some logical sense. If not, please let me what the issue with it is.

The difference between Jesus and Harry Potter is we have sufficient information to know how Harry Potter originated and we see that it is pretty much fiction (including the characters). We can even ask the author of the book series about whether or not Harry Potter is a real person if you really needed to be sure.

I can't be as confident regarding Jesus' non-existence.

Sorry, I missed this question.

Sure, we can talk to the author. But in the end, we only have the author's word, and they may not even know the truth. They may be lying and know it is true. It may "happen" to all be true anyway, or maybe its truth invaded the author's consciousness and caused them to write it, thinking it was fiction. Their "say so" does not decide whether or not the events are true or partly true. But an examination of the text alone, regardless of what the author says, should produce a valid result. Is there good reason to think any of these events are true? No. You say we "see it is fiction"... I know what you're saying here. By that line of reasoning though the gospels should also be considered fiction because (a) they are often written in a mythical rather than historical style and (b) they include obviously fictional factors like jesus fulfilling prophecies that aren't even prophecies, and doing impossible things. And doing contradictory things based on the telling and retelling of his story, which grows over time rather than diminishes, pointing to embellishment rather than fact.

We don't know who wrote the bible, or why exactly. But again, what the author says is largely irrelevant. The text should stand or fall on its own. And remember, this is really important: even if the authors of the gospels thought they were writing the truth, all they had to go on was hearsay. We have no reason to believe they had any other sources than this. So 100% belief in what they were writing has 0% effect on whether it was actually true. This is why I reject hearsay, it carries no weight as evidence.

---

What I mean is... To say jesus is mythical isn't making a claim as such, it's just saying HJ has not met its burden of proof.

What is its "burden of proof" here? How would it meet this, exactly? What evidence, of the kind that we could expect for an early first century Jewish preacher, would be sufficient to meet this burden of proof, in your opinion?

And I don't mean declaring that it definitely is mythical; just that if something isn't demonstrably real, we have no reason to assume it's anything but fiction.

See my questions above about what could be "demonstrable" here.

To address this again:

I'm not sure if this is your point but... If it is the case that there could not reasonably be expected to be enough evidence to establish the historicity of jesus, this should not give us extra leeway to promote the credibility of the evidence we do have to "fill this gap" or to just make assumptions based on people's motives. If the evidence is not there, then we cannot make a case. Making allowances is not honest practice, especially for such a badly documented series of events, such a long time ago.

But really, it comes down to this: Is there any credible evidence, not hearsay, that Jesus was a real person? The answer seems to be no.