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

[robvalue]

I clearly said I don't care about anyone else. I don't care about Hannibal or the tooth fairy.

What is the case for HJ? If there's not good enough evidence, it's not my fault.

This is more appeals.

[TheMessiah]

I clearly said I don't care about anyone else. I don't care about Hannibal or the tooth fairy.

What is the case for HJ? If there's not good enough evidence, it's not my fault.

This is more appeals.

This is not how Historical analysis works. Again, the lack of contemporary testimony for Jesus is not a basis for an argument about his existence or non-existence.

Twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus has HJ been referenced; a source who has been used for justification for the existence of other Historical figures (Testimonium Flavianum, is not authentic in its entirety, it is agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.).

You want more evidence? I did cite Tacitus, a 2nd Century Roman Historian who hated Christians yet still referenced the Cruxification of Christ. Is this not good enough?

I don't know what you expect; but the historical evidence for a radical peasant Jewish preacher in the 1st Century is pretty strong in its foundation.

Antiquities XVIII.63 for instance, even if you dismiss it (as most Historians don't), Antiquities XX.9 is there for backup.

[Dystopia]

TheMessiah, it's called a fallacy of composition.

[robvalue]

Josephus is an obvious forgery, and still only tells you what people believed, not what was true. It's terrible evidence if you consider it evidence at all.

So we have some other very after-the-fact references to what people may have believed about Jesus, trying to confirm accounts (NT) written way after his supposed death, from hearsay.

That is pathetic I'm afraid, that will never be enough to convince me. Of course there is a chance of a HJ, but to say it's most likely, no way.

If it is true, then I expect more evidence than hearsay and hearsay about hearsay. If there isn't any, then tough. I don't much care what historians say if they are taking hearsay as credible evidence.

If that's enough evidence for you, then that's cool. We just agree to disagree

[TheMessiah]

Josephus is an obvious forgery, and still only tells you what people believed, not what was true. It's terrible evidence if you consider it evidence at all.

So we have some other very after-the-fact references to what people may have believed about Jesus, trying to confirm accounts (NT) written way after his supposed death, from hearsay.

That is pathetic I'm afraid, that will never be enough to convince me. Of course there is a chance of a HJ, but to say it's most likely, no way.

If it is true, then I expects more evidence than hearsay and hearsay about hearsay. If there isn't any, then tough. I don't much care what historians say if they are taking hearsay as credible evidence.

HisscholarFeldman stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.''

Again, I cited a 2nd Century Historian who hated Christians, yet acknowledged Jesus, a peasant Jewish preacher was executed. Why do you not accept this? For what reason do you have to deny this as evidence for the existence of a poor and dirty Jewish preacher?

I don't know why you don't care about what Historians say; but they are the professionals...

I wrote this a while ago, so I'll repost it here.

That’s how I feel when people in the skeptic community argue that Jesus never existed. They are dismissing a large body of work for which they have insufficient appreciation, most often due to the fact that they themselves have never formally studied the subject.

There are at least a handful of things about the origins of the Christian religion which we can reasonably conclude based on the things that we know. Among them are that there was most likely a guy named Jesus who preached and was killed outside Jerusalem, and that after his death a diverse following emerged which built around that event a narrative which grew to become the Christian faith.

The existence of two or three professionals within the study of antiquity claiming that Jesus never existed does not signal a sea change in that field. There haven’t been any new discoveries in the past few years which signal any significant changes in that discipline. The only thing I see that’s changed is public opinion.

The earliest writings which attest to the existence of Jesus come from the apostle Paul, a leather worker by day and preacher by night who by many accounts was the man most responsible for the founding of the Christian faith we’ve come to know today. But the oral tradition which later came to inform the writing of the gospels almost certainly originated independently of his influence and predates the ministry of Paul by many years. At least in its most basic form, the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus had matured into a credal form by the time Paul sat down to write (or else dictate) his first letter to the Corinthians, some time in the mid-50′s AD:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

While Paul cleverly added himself into this formula in an attempt to put himself on par with the guys who actually knew Jesus, the language of passing along a received tradition should tell us something. It’s the same language he uses a few chapters earlier in describing the eucharistic meal he had been taught to observe:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Paul didn’t invent these stories himself; they had been handed down to him by others. Now that doesn’t mean he didn’t significantly rework the Christian message into a tradition which his Judean forbears would scarcely recognize. It seems obvious to me that Paul’s refashioning of the Christian story to accommodate a Gentile audience heavily influenced most subsequent expressions of this nascent movement, and it seems it even affected the later written form of the gospels themselves. But the oral tradition around which those stories were woven didn’t begin with him.
In fact, the sayings and parables attributed to Jesus are famously absent from Paul’s letters, which tells us two things:

1) He really seemed either unfamiliar or unconcerned with a great deal of the oral tradition (much of which was probably still in formation during his ministry), and therefore

2) For all his influence in the development of early Christianity, he didn’t invent all of this stuff himself. The criterion of dissimilarity actually counts for something. As time went on, Pauline Christianity conflicted with Judean Christianity on many occasions, prompting a conference over which the two opposing factions contintued to disagree for years to come. In the end, it appears that Paulinian Christianity won out, and it was those New Testament writings which his communities produced which later came to dominate the established canon.

Too much has been made of the contemporary silence about Jesus. Exactly how much notoriety would you expect a Jewish peasant to have in his context? How worthy of public record was the life and execution of an itinerant rabbi from Galilee? The civic leaders of the time didn’t even consider the names of those executed important enough to record for posterity. While highly colored by religious bias, the amount of information we have about Jesus is still impressive in comparison to any other non-official person of his time, even when pared down the most essential details. It’s true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it’s not extraordinary to claim that an itinerant Jewish preacher got in trouble with the law and was executed, nor in that day and age would it be extraordinary to see a following emerge around his life and teachings.


While we skeptics roll our eyes at how uncritically the religious repeat things they’ve heard, we tend to obsess over fact-checking what we read so that we don’t pass along incorrect information. We’ve all had that embarrassing moment when we post a link on social media only to find out that yet another new parody site has slipped past our notice (they’re multplying like rabbits these days). But we strive to do better than that. We pride ourselves on our own ideological parsimony, and we work hard to make sure the stuff we say isn’t based on insufficiently thought-through assumptions.

But it doesn’t feel like that’s happening here. It feels like here lately a growing number of fellow freethinkers are jumping on the bandwagon of an intellectual position that hasn’t yet earned credibility. Rather than concluding that the New Testament simply exaggerated the size and scope of the Christian church during its earliest years, people are jumping all the way to the opposite ditch and concluding that every single thing contained therein must have been made up entirely. But the many contradictions and variations we encounter within the gospels (and noncanonical books) point to the unreliability of the sources, but not necessarily to the complete nonexistence of their central figure. And while the oldest extant copies of Paul’s letters date back to nearly a century after the time that he wrote them, we posess no variants of those letters which leave out the credal statements referenced above, leaving us with the reality of an early attestation (mid-first-century) of the existence of Jesus. There’s a method to determining these things, and a pretty thoroughly developed academic discipline underneath it all. It doesn’t speak well of us to dismiss whole disciplines with the wave of a hand on account of two or three of its members finally suggesting something we wanted to believe all along.
And that right there is my biggest problem with the mythicist position. During my deconversion I learned to be highly suspicious of my own willingness to accept ideas that I wanted to be true without applying the same intellectual rigor and skepticism toward those ideas before accepting them.

I suspect that many non-theists would love the vindication of discovering that the whole Jesus story was made up from start to finish. Not just embellished by layers of legend developed over decades of telling and retelling the stories to a wide-eyed audience, but fabricated out of whole cloth and completely devoid of historical fact. The layers of legend over a kernel of original history makes the most sense to me. And I don’t think it makes us look very objective when we too eagerly embrace a position which contradicts an almost universal consensus among those who have devoted their lives to the academic discipline which concerns itself with these matters. We of all people should know better.

[robvalue]

OK man, well we'll just have to agree to disagree. We clearly have very different approaches to historical evidence, which is fine. So I'm not gonna argue with you anymore.

[Dystopia]

TheMessiah, since quoting sources seems so important for you, I'm going to show you some reasons to doubt the existence of jesus

A summary:

No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystallized in later texts.

Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Now apply scepticism

[Anomalocaris]

Why would I want to watch religion when I could travel several million years back and see some dinosaurs?

Indeed, why not take some dromeosaurs back with you and let them loose upon Jesus and Muhammud?

If you can't get Jesus to ride a velociraptor like creationists fancy, at least you can get him to be eaten by one and then tell creationists they were right about dinos and men coexisting.

[FatAndFaithless]

---

Josephus is an obvious forgery, and still only tells you what people believed, not what was true. It's terrible evidence if you consider it evidence at all.

So we have some other very after-the-fact references to what people may have believed about Jesus, trying to confirm accounts (NT) written way after his supposed death, from hearsay.

That is pathetic I'm afraid, that will never be enough to convince me. Of course there is a chance of a HJ, but to say it's most likely, no way.

If it is true, then I expects more evidence than hearsay and hearsay about hearsay. If there isn't any, then tough. I don't much care what historians say if they are taking hearsay as credible evidence.

HisscholarFeldman stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.''

Again, I cited a 2nd Century Historian who hated Christians, yet acknowledged Jesus, a peasant Jewish preacher was executed. Why do you not accept this? For what reason do you have to deny this as evidence for the existence of a poor and dirty Jewish preacher?

I don't know why you don't care about what Historians say; but they are the professionals...

I wrote this a while ago, so I'll repost it here.

That’s how I feel when people in the skeptic community argue that Jesus never existed. They are dismissing a large body of work for which they have insufficient appreciation, most often due to the fact that they themselves have never formally studied the subject.

There are at least a handful of things about the origins of the Christian religion which we can reasonably conclude based on the things that we know. Among them are that there was most likely a guy named Jesus who preached and was killed outside Jerusalem, and that after his death a diverse following emerged which built around that event a narrative which grew to become the Christian faith.

The existence of two or three professionals within the study of antiquity claiming that Jesus never existed does not signal a sea change in that field. There haven’t been any new discoveries in the past few years which signal any significant changes in that discipline. The only thing I see that’s changed is public opinion.

The earliest writings which attest to the existence of Jesus come from the apostle Paul, a leather worker by day and preacher by night who by many accounts was the man most responsible for the founding of the Christian faith we’ve come to know today. But the oral tradition which later came to inform the writing of the gospels almost certainly originated independently of his influence and predates the ministry of Paul by many years. At least in its most basic form, the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus had matured into a credal form by the time Paul sat down to write (or else dictate) his first letter to the Corinthians, some time in the mid-50′s AD:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

While Paul cleverly added himself into this formula in an attempt to put himself on par with the guys who actually knew Jesus, the language of passing along a received tradition should tell us something. It’s the same language he uses a few chapters earlier in describing the eucharistic meal he had been taught to observe:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Paul didn’t invent these stories himself; they had been handed down to him by others. Now that doesn’t mean he didn’t significantly rework the Christian message into a tradition which his Judean forbears would scarcely recognize. It seems obvious to me that Paul’s refashioning of the Christian story to accommodate a Gentile audience heavily influenced most subsequent expressions of this nascent movement, and it seems it even affected the later written form of the gospels themselves. But the oral tradition around which those stories were woven didn’t begin with him.
In fact, the sayings and parables attributed to Jesus are famously absent from Paul’s letters, which tells us two things:

1) He really seemed either unfamiliar or unconcerned with a great deal of the oral tradition (much of which was probably still in formation during his ministry), and therefore

2) For all his influence in the development of early Christianity, he didn’t invent all of this stuff himself. The criterion of dissimilarity actually counts for something. As time went on, Pauline Christianity conflicted with Judean Christianity on many occasions, prompting a conference over which the two opposing factions contintued to disagree for years to come. In the end, it appears that Paulinian Christianity won out, and it was those New Testament writings which his communities produced which later came to dominate the established canon.

Too much has been made of the contemporary silence about Jesus. Exactly how much notoriety would you expect a Jewish peasant to have in his context? How worthy of public record was the life and execution of an itinerant rabbi from Galilee? The civic leaders of the time didn’t even consider the names of those executed important enough to record for posterity. While highly colored by religious bias, the amount of information we have about Jesus is still impressive in comparison to any other non-official person of his time, even when pared down the most essential details. It’s true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it’s not extraordinary to claim that an itinerant Jewish preacher got in trouble with the law and was executed, nor in that day and age would it be extraordinary to see a following emerge around his life and teachings.


While we skeptics roll our eyes at how uncritically the religious repeat things they’ve heard, we tend to obsess over fact-checking what we read so that we don’t pass along incorrect information. We’ve all had that embarrassing moment when we post a link on social media only to find out that yet another new parody site has slipped past our notice (they’re multplying like rabbits these days). But we strive to do better than that. We pride ourselves on our own ideological parsimony, and we work hard to make sure the stuff we say isn’t based on insufficiently thought-through assumptions.

But it doesn’t feel like that’s happening here. It feels like here lately a growing number of fellow freethinkers are jumping on the bandwagon of an intellectual position that hasn’t yet earned credibility. Rather than concluding that the New Testament simply exaggerated the size and scope of the Christian church during its earliest years, people are jumping all the way to the opposite ditch and concluding that every single thing contained therein must have been made up entirely. But the many contradictions and variations we encounter within the gospels (and noncanonical books) point to the unreliability of the sources, but not necessarily to the complete nonexistence of their central figure. And while the oldest extant copies of Paul’s letters date back to nearly a century after the time that he wrote them, we posess no variants of those letters which leave out the credal statements referenced above, leaving us with the reality of an early attestation (mid-first-century) of the existence of Jesus. There’s a method to determining these things, and a pretty thoroughly developed academic discipline underneath it all. It doesn’t speak well of us to dismiss whole disciplines with the wave of a hand on account of two or three of its members finally suggesting something we wanted to believe all along.
And that right there is my biggest problem with the mythicist position. During my deconversion I learned to be highly suspicious of my own willingness to accept ideas that I wanted to be true without applying the same intellectual rigor and skepticism toward those ideas before accepting them.

I suspect that many non-theists would love the vindication of discovering that the whole Jesus story was made up from start to finish. Not just embellished by layers of legend developed over decades of telling and retelling the stories to a wide-eyed audience, but fabricated out of whole cloth and completely devoid of historical fact. The layers of legend over a kernel of original history makes the most sense to me. And I don’t think it makes us look very objective when we too eagerly embrace a position which contradicts an almost universal consensus among those who have devoted their lives to the academic discipline which concerns itself with these matters. We of all people should know better.

---

So, you're Neil Carter?

[robvalue]

I was thinking we had a return of HM

Historians must really suck ass if this is the best they can come up with.

---

Who wants to go lynch some of these rent-a-historians?

---

I feel the urge to make fun of historians. Historians who think that because they are qualified, they can sprinkle fairy dust on a bunch of hearsay and turn it into credible evidence. I'm gonna pull some names out of my hat and then go decapitate some of them.

Later. I'm a bit tired.