Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Confused Ape]

Did "john" (who also appears in Josephus...briefly) and "jesus" mint their own coinage?

I can now add the Pilate coins to archaeological backup for Pilate's existence along with the Pilate Stone. I didn't know about those so thanks for mentioning them.

Anyway, as I said in that earlier post - If we're supposed to accept Josephus's history books as proof of Pilate's existence without archaeological backup we'll have to do the same for Jesus and John the Baptist. This is why archaeological backup is so important - without it there would have been no concrete evidence that Pilate really existed. We can't accept Josephus's mentioning Jesus as proof of Jesus's existence, though, because he was only reporting what he'd heard from some Christians.

Looking for the real, historical Jesus is like looking for the Historical Basis For King Arthur

If Jesus had really existed, though, he would have have been an ordinary human who went around preaching what he thought was the Jewish God's message. All supposing he wasn't suffering from some mental illness which made him think he was God's son, of course.

but no one seems to like to mention the tale of Jephthah

Funny you should mention Jephthah. I once spent some time trying to find out what the story meant in Judaism and there are a lot of puzzled scholars. Here's one example of puzzlement from the Jewish Women's Archive.

Daughter Of Jephthah

And in making the vow, does he not know that it was customary in Israel for women to come out and greet with song and dance victorious male warriors upon their return from battle (compare Exod 15:19–21; 1 Sam 18:6–7) and that it is quite likely that his daughter will also follow this custom? Or does he think that an animal will be first out of his house? (Animals were often stabled in a small room inside, and quite near the entrance of, the typical Israelite house.And animals were a common object of sacrifice in ancient Israel.)

Another question concerns whether Jephthah’s daughter has prior knowledge of her father’s vow before she steps out of the house. The text suggests that Jephthah’s vow was made in their hometown of Mizpah; if pronounced publicly, presumably she would have heard it. Perhaps that was Jephthah’s intention—that she hear it and so take warning not to come out of the house first. But even if the vow was spoken in private, it is still conceivable that word could have gotten back to the daughter. And yet if the daughter did know, one wonders why she went out to greet him.

[Question Mark]

All of the conjectures surrounding the story, whilst interesting, seriously I love a story as much as the next man, but ultimately they are insignificant. One can only say for sure anything about what actually happened in the story. To add anything, or to interpret it in a way that isn't consistent to make it sound better, is nothing more than dishonest apologetics. Now, the cultural details of Hebrew society, such as where the animals were placed, and the custom of women coming out of their house to greet victorious parades, sure, that's important. But since none of them indicate the intentions of the individuals of the story to any degree, they're also merely objects of fascination.

The point of the story is that the daughter did come out first, and God being all-knowing and all powerful, certainly knew about it. Otherwise he's not all knowing, which calls into question most of Christian doctrine. If he did know it, then he's all for human sacrifice.

Abraham certainly believed God would ask that of his people.

[Minimalist]

Looking for the real, historical Jesus is like looking for the Historical Basis For King Arthur

An even better question is to ask these historians what they mean by the "historical" jesus.

Bart Ehrman clearly means a wandering teacher who ran afoul of the law and rejects the miracle-working nonsense. However, we have NO evidence at all for that jesus. We have at least the unreliable and heavily edited gospels to serve as "evidence" ( however shitty ) of the miracle-working jesus.

T'is a problem. For them.

[Zone]

If you remove all the miracles from Jesus you're not left with much of a Jesus at all. But there were (and still are) people who believed they had divine powers with a cult following so it's not too much of a push that the historical Jesus would be roughly the same sort of character.

[Confused Ape]

Now, the cultural details of Hebrew society, such as where the animals were placed, and the custom of women coming out of their house to greet victorious parades, sure, that's important. But since none of them indicate the intentions of the individuals of the story to any degree, they're also merely objects of fascination.

The cultural details are the source of puzzlement concerning what was supposed have been happening in this story. You can't blame Jewish people for wanting to figure out what might have been going on during this period of their own history.

I found an interesting article about Polytheism and Human Sacrifice in Early Israelite Religion

There's evidence that human sacrifice was practised in the early days but it eventually died out.

There's also this article by a Rabbi - THE SACRIFICE OF JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER: JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES

Human sacrifice is clearly forbidden by the Torah: Lev. 18:21, 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31, 18:10. However violence is one of the central themes of the book of Judges. The book as a whole seems to suggest that the Hebrews instead of rejecting the idolatry and pagan morality of the newly conquered population adopted them. Note the last sections of the Book of Judges; the chopping up of a woman into twelve pieces (19:29-30), the raping of women of Shiloh (21:22-23) and the final verse ‘everyone did as he saw fit (21:25). One commentator suggests that Jephthah sacrificing his daughter is a quintessential symbol of this moral degeneration (Janzen:35-36).

So, had the Hebrews gone back to pagan practises in Jepthah's time even though they weren't supposed to or hadn't it died out by then?

Human sacrifice had definitely died out during the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, though. So on to resurrection and who is supposed to get to a happy afterlife in Judaism.

Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife

It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.

Do non-Jews have a place in Olam Ha-Ba? Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people. If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba.

There's nothing there about anyone dying and then being resurrected in three days. There's nothing there about having to believe in God's sacrificed son to get to the Jewish idea of heaven, either.

An even better question is to ask these historians what they mean by the "historical" jesus.

Bart Ehrman clearly means a wandering teacher who ran afoul of the law and rejects the miracle-working nonsense. However, we have NO evidence at all for that jesus. We have at least the unreliable and heavily edited gospels to serve as "evidence" ( however shitty ) of the miracle-working jesus.

T'is a problem. For them.

@Minimalist The idea that Jesus wandered around Palestine preaching to people had to come from somewhere. After all, dozens of people don't just wake up one morning sharing the same new belief for no reason. Some people think that Paul might have been schizophrenic. If so, it's possible that Jesus was only a product of his schizophrenic delusions so he never really existed. The problem is that I can't find any evidence that Paul really existed either.

[Kritter]

I think this is worth putting in as a new thread, sometimes trolls spam threads with abuse instead of commenting on content.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.

So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Claudius. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.

It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Claudius wanted to impose on the bank.

Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.

Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.

If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.

What do you think?

Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome.

This is spoke of in the Annals 15:44 by Tacitus. This is no proof of a jesus. Tacitus is only citing what he heard.

[Minimalist]

The idea that Jesus wandered around Palestine preaching to people had to come from somewhere.

There is nothing new under the sun.

In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others

From a discussion of sophists on Wiki.

Of course, such people would not waste their time speaking to illiterate peasants.

The problem is that I can't find any evidence that Paul really existed either.

Nor will you. There are few historical markers in Paul's writings. One is in 2 Corinthians 11

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

Damascus was actually conquered by Aretas III of Nabatea but c 84 BC. 2 Corinthians is one of the epistles which is largely considered "authentic" to Paul but if that is the case then he is nearly a century too early. Xtians get real quiet about this one. Instead they try to claim that the Romans "gave" Damascus to Aretas IV shortly before he died in 40 AD. But that is an absurd story. Damascus was the Western terminus of the Silk Road and thus arguably one of the most valuable pieces of commercial real estate in the western world. The Romans did not build a great empire by making such asinine deals.

[Confused Ape]

The idea that Jesus wandered around Palestine preaching to people had to come from somewhere.

There is nothing new under the sun.

So dozens of people just woke up one morning believing that a man called Yĕhōšûă or Iēsous or Iesus had wandered around Palestine? If he was invented, somebody had to provide this fictional character with a name and some kind of background. Was the inventor a Jew or a Greek or a Roman? And why pick that name in particular?

Oxford Englisn Dictionary Definition Of Jesus

from Christian Latin Iesus, from Greek Iēsous, from a late Hebrew or Aramaic analogous formation based on Yĕhōšûă‘ 'Joshua'

What we really need is concrete proof for where the idea came from. I'm stuck for google keywords so perhaps you might be able to find something out for us.

[Brian37]

There is nothing new under the sun.

So dozens of people just woke up one morning believing that a man called Yĕhōšûă or Iēsous or Iesus had wandered around Palestine? If he was invented, somebody had to provide this fictional character with a name and some kind of background. Was the inventor a Jew or a Greek or a Roman? And why pick that name in particular?

Oxford Englisn Dictionary Definition Of Jesus

from Christian Latin Iesus, from Greek Iēsous, from a late Hebrew or Aramaic analogous formation based on Yĕhōšûă‘ 'Joshua'

What we really need is concrete proof for where the idea came from. I'm stuck for google keywords so perhaps you might be able to find something out for us.

This proves that prior influence leads to new memes. But what it will never do is prove that invisible beings by any name exist. All it proves is that humans have imaginations and draw that from the cultures around them.

[Confused Ape]

This proves that prior influence leads to new memes. But what it will never do is prove that invisible beings by any name exist. All it proves is that humans have imaginations and draw that from the cultures around them.

Nobody's trying to prove that invisible beings actually exist. We're trying to find out how the story of Jesus could have got started and enjoying ourselves in the process. I don't think there's any rule which states that atheists and agnostics can't be interested in the development of a religion from an historical perspective.