A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

[robvalue]

Actually, I'll program my time machine to take me to watch the "real" one developing, whatever that may be. Any christians care to join me?

Hmm. I didn't go anywhere. Damn thing's on the fritz I guess.

[Exian]

Maybe animism in all its forms and I'd write some shit down.

If I had to give a more solid answer: pre-dynastic Egypt.

[TheMessiah]

I would not like to derail this thread;

I once thought he was nothing more than a myth before stumbling upon this.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christ...-t219.html

One of the users is called Tim O Neill, an Atheist himself who argues that Jesus must have existed due to the political atmosphere/effect he had on the Roman Empire.

Zeus had an amazing effect on the Greeks? Did he exist? It's just special pleading without actual evidence.

This exact quote is directly tackled and debunked in the link I posted, 2nd page.

There is sufficient evidence for historians to accept that Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan Prophet and several others exist. Given that there is even better evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus existed, they accept the existence of him as well.

This part, I do reluctantly agree with.

No, Jesus is the one that suddenly needs a far higher level of attestation because Jesus is the main character in a modern religious story. In other words, an ideological desire to undermine Christianity drives certain non-believers to shift the level of evidence required to a higher level for Jesus because of a clear bias and prejudice.

That's not rational. The level of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus should be no more or no less than that required for any other First Century Jewish preacher, prophet or Messianic claimant. As rationalists, we should be careful to avoid bias based on modern Christian ideas about who this particular Jewish preacher was. To do so is irrational.

[robvalue]

We had about a 100 page "discussion" on HJ that led absolutely nowhere. The evidence, such as it is, is highly inconclusive. And that's being generous. I think if you want to hammer it out we should start a new thread for it Or dig up the old one :o

It's so inconsequential though. At best you've got some insane preacher or other, with 50% at best quotes correctly attributed to him, who probably did next to none of the stuff he was meant to do. Who cares? He was either no one, or some loser, or a legion of several weirdos. What he was not was of any significance whatsoever, except through myth.

I kick Jesus in the balls every day. I don't think any atheists actually care whether there was a HJ or not. But it would be funny to watch the no-jesus show.

[Silver]

It is one thing to state there is evidence but it is another thing entirely to actually provide stated evidence, which those who claim there is evidence cannot seem to do.

[TheMessiah]

We had about a 100 page "discussion" on HJ that led absolutely nowhere. The evidence, such as it is, is highly inconclusive. And that's being generous. I think if you want to hammer it out we should start a new thread for it Or dig up the old one :o

It's so inconsequential though. At best you've got some insane preacher or other, with 50% at best quotes correctly attributed to him, who probably did next to none of the stuff he was meant to do. Who cares? He was either no one, or some loser, or a legion of several weirdos. What he was not was of any significance whatsoever, except through myth.

I kick Jesus in the balls every day. I don't think any atheists actually care whether there was a HJ or not. But it would be funny to watch the no-jesus show.

I'll bump the appropriate thread for this.

I was pointing out, that I find it interesting that lesser known Historical characters historicity is accepted despite lesser evidence than that of Jesus; whereas Jesus, whom has more evidence to his probable existence as a man and revolutionary is put to more scrutiny. I do believe that the rampant popularity of Jesus leads people to demand more evidence of his existence.

We have references to him in the works of his followers that date to within a few decades of his death. Then we have Josephus. Even if you dismiss Antiquities XVIII.63 wholesale (as most scholars don't), there's still Antiquities XX.9 to contend with. And then there's Tacitus. Compared to other Jewish preachers, prophets and wannabe Messiahs of the time - people like Theudas, the Egyptian, Hillel, Gamaliel and the Baptist - Jesus is actually comparatively well-attested.

[robvalue]

Fair enough. I've not studied any of these other historical characters, so I can't comment on how the evidence stacks up.

[Dystopia]

We had about a 100 page "discussion" on HJ that led absolutely nowhere. The evidence, such as it is, is highly inconclusive. And that's being generous. I think if you want to hammer it out we should start a new thread for it Or dig up the old one :o

It's so inconsequential though. At best you've got some insane preacher or other, with 50% at best quotes correctly attributed to him, who probably did next to none of the stuff he was meant to do. Who cares? He was either no one, or some loser, or a legion of several weirdos. What he was not was of any significance whatsoever, except through myth.

I kick Jesus in the balls every day. I don't think any atheists actually care whether there was a HJ or not. But it would be funny to watch the no-jesus show.

I was pointing out, that I find it interesting that lesser known Historical characters historicity is accepted despite lesser evidence than that of Jesus; whereas Jesus, whom has more evidence to his probable existence as a man and revolutionary is put to more scrutiny. I do believe that the rampant popularity of Jesus leads people to demand more evidence of his existence.

We have references to him in the works of his followers that date to within a few decades of his death. Then we have Josephus. Even if you dismiss Antiquities XVIII.63 wholesale (as most scholars don't), there's still Antiquities XX.9 to contend with. And then there's Tacitus. Compared to other Jewish preachers, prophets and wannabe Messiahs of the time - people like Theudas, the Egyptian, Hillel, Gamaliel and the Baptist - Jesus is actually comparatively well-attested.

You're going to have to provide some more accurate evidence buddy.

[Pyrrho]

Kama Sutra development.

You seem to have forgotten one of the key parts of the OP:

... you do not interact with these figures, just observe ...

You may as well just watch porn on the internet, if just watching satisfies you.

[robvalue]

Josephus = utter arse

I don't consider that evidence of anything other than the lengths xianity will go to in order to push their agenda.