(December 11, 2019 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(December 11, 2019 at 1:55 pm)maxolla Wrote: This is where the discussion gets interesting. You’ve just made five unsupported claims. Actually six with “please don’t bother to list those that you think qualify. They don’t”. I’m perfectly willing to talk specifics with regards to evidence but wouldn’t a starting point be a willingness to at least weigh the evidence on the merits?
I’m curious how the "Jesus myth" was perpetrated. This claim seems to be the most outrageous. One of the, arguably, most written about figures in human history has been made up? The idea that Jesus never existed is as much a fantastic claim as to say Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist. The story of Jesus of Nazareth is one that has been corroborated many times over and repeated for over two thousand years. If Jesus did not exist then we have one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated? Perpetrated by generations of individuals with a oneness of purpose in the perpetration. I wonder what the purpose would be for a conspiracy spanning over two thousand years of a phantom named Jesus.
There are certainly contemporaneous mentions of Jesus but you have deemed them unqualified by your standards I assume.
Max
If my claims are unsupported, you'll need to show contemporaneous accounts (meaning accounts written during his purported lifetime) of a figure who corresponds to the Jesus of the Gospel narrative.
You can, of course, list whatever accounts you think would support an historic Jesus. I only asked that you not do so because these (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc) have been refuted so often that it becomes tiresome.
If being frequently written about is a basis for historicity, then King Arthur and Robin Hood are historic figures. But perpetuation of the Jesus myth isn't all that hard to explain. It perpetuated in the same way that any other religion does. Are you claiming that the figures in Greek mythology and Hinduism are historic?
But I don't think the Jesus myth is a conspiracy in the sense you seem to be using the word. I suspect that the great majority of Christians sincerely believe in an historic Jesus and aren't trying to fool anybody about it, which would seem to be required for this to be a conspiracy.
Boru
The historical Jesus is pretty well documented. I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist. Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians. No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period. That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.
As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters. Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character. In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.
Thanks
Max