Was Jesus a myth? [Archive]

Loony Le Fist

4th March 2014, 06:38

...
Obviously none or very little of the life of Jesus is true, but it's equally fantastical to say that the entire New Testament was based on a fabricated person, and just borders on silly conspiracy theory.

Well are there any extra-biblical sources for Jesus's life other than perhaps Josephus? Josephus is rather non-credible considering that he himself was a Christian trying to promote the faith, and was known to modify his own work to bring it into alignment with Biblical sources. The pagan sources of the time, while mentioning Christianity, also fail to mention Jesus. Why would this be?

What would be your response to legitimate respected NT scholars like Robert Price, very well studied in the field, who also acknowledges that it is difficult to substantiate the claim of historicity? There is no archaeological evidence, and no extra-biblical evidence. There is no independent historical record, unbound to Christianity, that would substantiate it. We would expect to see Pagan sources as well. I doubt you could simply hand-wave away these reasonable objections as a "silly conspiracy theory".

I understand that we must do our best based on what we can know. For example, Socrates is another person only known through written accounts. But there are at least three independent authors of his time that corroborate his existence. Plato and Xenophon, for example both give accounts of Socrates defense against the charges that he was finally executed for.

BIXX

4th March 2014, 07:16

One thing that I think we must consider is that the bible (I believe) was written by several sources independently, who later compiled their work, bit that they planned to write the bible. Which, IMO, lends credibility to the idea that Jesus was real. Of course I don't believe all his magic crap but whatever.

I subscribe to the theory of the "Radical" Jesus, that fact that he helped the poor and wanted to alter Jewish society (not fight back against the Romans now- they will simply crush us kinda deal) so they wouldn't be destroyed by the Romans. Most Jewish folks it seemed didn't like that plan, and ignored or shunned him. Then, a while later (if my source, who is a Christian teacher of mine but he isn't crazy about it) there was a Jewish uprising and their society was destroyed by the Romans (rather, not completely destroyed but severely harmed). So my theory is that his teachings were meant to save the Jewish society, nothing more.

Edit to add: this may be why he is called "savior".

Creative Destruction

4th March 2014, 07:23

Well are there any extra-biblical sources for Jesus's life other than perhaps Josephus? Josephus is rather non-credible considering that he himself was a Christian trying to promote the faith, and was known to modify his own work to bring it into alignment with Biblical sources. The pagan sources of the time, while mentioning Christianity, also fail to mention Jesus. Why would this be?

What would be your response to legitimate respected NT scholars like Robert Price, very well studied in the field, who also acknowledges that it is difficult to substantiate the claim of historicity? There is no archaeological evidence, and no extra-biblical evidence. There is no independent historical record, unbound to Christianity, that would substantiate it. We would expect to see Pagan sources as well. I doubt you could simply hand-wave away these reasonable objections as a "silly conspiracy theory".

I understand that we must do our best based on what we can know. For example, Socrates is another person only known through written accounts. But there are at least three independent authors of his time that corroborate his existence. Plato and Xenophon, for example both give accounts of Socrates defense against the charges that he was finally executed for.

Josephus and Tacitus are the primary sources, who confirm independent Christian accounts. it's worth noting that Price is an extreme minority in his field and that his work -- and the work of the Jesus mythicists -- haven't convinced other biblical and classical scholars who have, put together, tons of scholarship and reading in their fields. in terms of this debate existing in academia, it's a lot similar to the global warming debate in academia. that is, there is none and the minority scholarship that does exist to support that extreme view is mostly for the consumption of people who are looking for scholarship to fit their foregone conclusions.

Loony Le Fist

4th March 2014, 07:46

...
in terms of this debate existing in academia, it's a lot similar to the global warming debate in academia. that is, there is none and the minority scholarship that does exist to support that extreme view is mostly for the edification of people who are looking for scholarship to fit their foregone conclusions.

Majority opinion cannot be the basis for truth. And we must consider the way the field of Biblical scholarship works versus the field of climate science. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges here. Like many humanities, there is a lot of influence in the field of Biblical scholarship to produce results that fit the status-quo. While the influence of the status-quo is relevant in many fields, in the case of Biblical scholarship there is no hard data to check opinions against. Unless of course there is archaeological evidence as well, which we don't have.

On the subject of Tacitus, he offers only hearsay from Christians. So again, it's not really a primary source. And we are still left with Josephus who is arguably unreliable. So this still casts doubt on true historicity.

I think it's unfair to conflate these legitimate concerns of scholarship with those of hard data or dismiss them as some scholar's attempt to feel good about them self.

Creative Destruction

4th March 2014, 08:15

Majority opinion cannot be the basis for truth. And we must consider the way the field of Biblical scholarship works versus the field of climate science. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges here. Like many humanities, there is a lot of influence in the field of Biblical scholarship to produce results that fit the status-quo. While the influence of the status-quo is relevant in many fields, in the case of Biblical scholarship there is no hard data to check opinions against. Unless of course there is archaeological evidence as well, which we don't have.

On the subject of Tacitus, he offers only hearsay from Christians. So again, it's not really a primary source. And we are still left with Josephus who is arguably unreliable. So this still casts doubt on true historicity.

I think it's unfair to conflate these legitimate concerns of scholarship with those of hard data or dismiss them as some scholar's attempt to feel good about them self.

It's not simply a case of "majority opinion." These aren't scholars who exist in an echo chamber. But, aside from that, I'm not pointing that out to prove absolute certainty. It's not true just because they're scholars, but they are people who have spent their lives work on studying this and Price's account is almost universally rejected until he can make a convincing argument. That counts for something. And I never rejected Price because I thought it was an attempt for him to "feel good" about himself. That's complete nonsense and that's just you making shit up.

But instead completely ignoring what seems to be a near consensus, have you actually read the scholarship behind it? Or are you just parroting Price's opinion? Surely there's a reason for why most classical and biblical historians accept Josephus and Tacitus as good sources.

tachosomoza

4th March 2014, 08:17

It's very possible that some Jew named Jesus of Nazareth was running around Roman occupied Judea calling himself the son of God and people believed him.

Blake's Baby

4th March 2014, 08:43

Josephus wasn't a Christian.

Both Tacitus and Josephus only exist in much later versions so either or both are potentailly corrupted by later Christian copyists inserting references. So, no, neither can be considered independent primary evidence.

While there is fairly extensive evidence for Christianity in the Empire (and of course Armenia became the first Christian country in the world in AD300 - not easy to see why if the entire Christian cult was a creation of the Flavians) there isn't any good primary evidence for the origins. On the other hand, if it were all madde up by the Flavians, why is it so inconsistent? If you have someone imposing a single vision on something, or creating it out of nothing, it would I think be a little more coherent.

The Jesus/Horus parallels are laughable. It may be from a Catholic source, but this http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/ uses better scholarship than any Jesus/Horus scholarship to demolish the claims that the myths of Jesus are retellings of the Horus myths.

Don't get me wrong. There are lots of parts of the Jesus stories (you can't even call it the 'Jesus story' as the accounts in the Bible don't even agree with each other) that are obviously derived from earlier sources, Jewish and Persian. The influence of the myths of Mithras (supposedly born in a stable in the dead of winter to bring light to the world) seems well established. Also, many of the sayings attributed to Jesus are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which were written perhaps 200 years before Jesus is supposed to have lived, and attributed to 'the Teacher of Righteousness'.

But I think the likelihood has to remain that there really was a preacher called Joshua who was condemned by the religious authorities in Jerusalem and executed by the Romans, whose followers later embellished the stories with stories from otehr sources. Whether he claimed or was claimed to be in his lifetime to be 'the Messiah' is unknowable. But (if Tacitus and Josephus are considered reliable) it seems pretty clear that there was at the very least a fairly widespread 'Christian cult' by the end of the 1st century AD.

Bala Perdida

4th March 2014, 08:47

It's very possible that some Jew named Jesus of Nazareth was running around Roman occupied Judea calling himself the son of God and people believed him.
Personally, I believe Christianity started out as a small cult centered around Jesus. This cult was very small so the Romans didn't credit it and it gained no significant attention, as I see it.
Also Christians back then had a tendancy to make stuff up to gain credibility. As horribly opinionated as this website might be, some fun facts prove to be useful and this one has two about Christians lying to gain credibility: http://www.cracked.com/article_20536_5-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-ancient-civilizations_p1.html.
So based off of that I don't believe in a saviour Jesus-son of god. Jesus was most likely real, but just an average weird cult leader.
Also the Bible is a myth, we studied it in my myth class. Although, as the school said, it is a myth because the stories fit the category not because it didn't happen.

Loony Le Fist

4th March 2014, 10:43

It's not simply a case of "majority opinion." These aren't scholars who exist in an echo chamber. But, aside from that, I'm not pointing that out to prove absolute certainty. It's not true just because they're scholars, but they are people who have spent their lives work on studying this and Price's account is almost universally rejected until he can make a convincing argument.

But here's my question. Price has spent his life's work studying it as well. So what makes his opinion less valid--the fact that most scholars disagree with him? Again I'm not sure that consensus is a valid way to ascertain truth.

That counts for something. And I never rejected Price because I thought it was an attempt for him to "feel good" about himself. That's complete nonsense and that's just you making shit up.

Let me quote myself on the statement I think you are referring to.

I think it's unfair to conflate these legitimate concerns of scholarship with those of hard data or dismiss them as some scholar's attempt to feel good about them self.

I never accused you of doing this. I said that it would be unfair to do so. Perhaps you should take your own advise on fabricating things. ;)

But instead completely ignoring what seems to be a near consensus, have you actually read the scholarship behind it? Or are you just parroting Price's opinion? Surely there's a reason for why most classical and biblical historians accept Josephus and Tacitus as good sources.

Once again, I don't think consensus is a valid way to ascertain truth. If that was the case, why aren't you a capitalist? There are plenty of people that have spent their life's work on it, like Hayek. Surely there's a reason they accept it, correct?

I won't claim to be an expert, but I have read Bart Erhman who has put together what seems to be the best argument against the Jesus mythicist position. Unfortunately, his position is unconvincing because it doesn't address the concerns I have pointed out.

Loony Le Fist

4th March 2014, 10:51

Josephus wasn't a Christian.

Noted. Thank you for the clarification

Both Tacitus and Josephus only exist in much later versions so either or both are potentailly corrupted by later Christian copyists inserting references. So, no, neither can be considered independent primary evidence.

Not only that. Tacitus is simply engaging in hearsay.

While there is fairly extensive evidence for Christianity in the Empire (and of course Armenia became the first Christian country in the world in AD300 - not easy to see why if the entire Christian cult was a creation of the Flavians) there isn't any good primary evidence for the origins. On the other hand, if it were all madde up by the Flavians, why is it so inconsistent? If you have someone imposing a single vision on something, or creating it out of nothing, it would I think be a little more coherent.

I agree. That's why I also reject that position.

A good work I read is called "Ceasar's Messiah", which talks about how Jesus, and indeed the entirety of Christianity, might have been an invention of the Flavians. Of course, this is a bit far fetched, IMO.

The Jesus/Horus parallels are laughable. It may be from a Catholic source, but this http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/ uses better scholarship than any Jesus/Horus scholarship to demolish the claims that the myths of Jesus are retellings of the Horus myths.

Again, we find agreement here. I'm not convinced they are retellings of any sort. But we do find parallels in the hero concepts. However, this in itself doesn't throw into question the historicity of Jesus. The thing that does, IMO, is the lack of solid sources.

Blake's Baby

4th March 2014, 11:19

There's no record that a shoemaker called Caius made shoes either. But that doesn't mean shoemakers aren't real.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Of course Jesus might not have existed. But given that he seems to have had a large and dispersed cult within 50 years or so of his reputed death, of which cult there is also no earlier record, it's easier I think to put that down to an individual (that was probably at least partly steeped in messianic traditions) living around AD30, rather than any other explanation.

As for Tacitus recounting 'heresay' - the argument isn't about what he recounted, it's about whether he recounted anything about the Christians at all. His account is either 1-a credible source about the existence of a Christian cult in 1st century Roman society, or 2-a generally reliable account of Roman society which has had later Christian apologism inserted into it. If it's the later he must be regarded as unreliable on the matter of the Christians, whatever he reports.

But as I say, the evidence points (as far as I read it) to being most likely to refer to an actual 'Rabbi Joshua' who probably lived in the early 1st century, and whose followers seem to have quickly decided was the Messiah.

keine_zukunft

4th March 2014, 14:01

Jesus more than likely did exist but the real theological question is whether he was actually the son of god.

Light of Lenin

4th March 2014, 14:30

Lenin was a mythicist.

The well-known German scientist, Arthur Drews, while refuting religious superstitions and fables in his book, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth), and while showing that Christ never existed, at the end of the book declares in favour of religion, albeit a renovated, purified and more subtle religion, one that would be capable of withstanding “the daily growing naturalist torrent” (fourth German edition, 1910, p. 238). Here we have an out-spoken and deliberate reactionary, who is openly helping the exploiters to replace the old, decayed religious superstitions by new, more odious and vile superstitions.

This does not mean that Drews should not be translated. It means that while in a certain measure effecting an alliance with the progressive section of the bourgeoisie, Communists and all consistent materialists should unflinchingly expose that section when it is guilty of reaction. It means that to shun an alliance with the representatives of the bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century, i.e., the period when it was revolutionary, would be to betray Marxism and materialism; for an “alliance” with the Drewses, in one form or another and in one degree or another., is essential for our struggle against the predominating religious obscurantists.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

4th March 2014, 14:43

I think it's likely that Jesus is the amalgamation of several Jewish revolutionaries/movements that existed over the course of several centuries. I think it's also possible that the name may not have even been intended for an individual person but may have been a reference to an ideal or feeling experienced by separatist religious practitioners who wished to escape from both the existing religious structure and the oppressive state. Everything else is nonsense tacked on by the Romans and their inheritors. Like most revolutionary ideals, reactionaries always seem to make better use of them than the revolutionaries themselves. I'm on my phone atm but I'll post some links when I get home.

DDR

4th March 2014, 14:56

Marvin Harris has a very interesting theory, Jesus wasn't real but a chracter created by mixing diferent personalities of bandits and other anti roman imperialism figures. Here's where he explaines it:

http://es.scribd.com/doc/92743263/Marvin-Cows-Pigs-Wars-And-Witches-the-Riddles-of-Culture-Random-House-1974

Chapters: Messiahs and Principe of Peace, IIRC.

boiler

4th March 2014, 16:23

I believe Jesus was probably a real person, I think some of the myth probably is true to. But I don't believe he was the son of god because I don't believe there is any god. But I do like the story and I like the message that's in his story. I think Jesus was most defiantly a socialist.

BIXX

4th March 2014, 16:24

Trap Queen Voxxy

4th March 2014, 16:43

I tots believe Jesus was real. Duh.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/a1c/d56/d59/resized/yfnjhffllkhj-meme-generator-excuse-me-could-you-spare-a-moment-to-speak-of-our-lord-and-savior-jesus-christ-31806c.png?1354757869.jpg

Alexios

4th March 2014, 17:11

Well are there any extra-biblical sources for Jesus's life other than perhaps Josephus? Josephus is rather non-credible considering that he himself was a Christian trying to promote the faith, and was known to modify his own work to bring it into alignment with Biblical sources. The pagan sources of the time, while mentioning Christianity, also fail to mention Jesus. Why would this be?

Jesus, if he existed, would have been a total non-issue for the empire and not warranted any mention in the annals. However, there's evidence of Christians existing in the decade immediately after Jesus' death - the Great Fire of Rome, sources mentioning nobles being punished for "Eastern superstitions", Seneca the Younger meeting St. Paul, etc. It could also be that the empire didn't know, or didn't care to know the name of this sect, as it was on the whole of very little importance.

What would be your response to legitimate respected NT scholars like Robert Price, very well studied in the field, who also acknowledges that it is difficult to substantiate the claim of historicity? There is no archaeological evidence, and no extra-biblical evidence. There is no independent historical record, unbound to Christianity, that would substantiate it. We would expect to see Pagan sources as well. I doubt you could simply hand-wave away these reasonable objections as a "silly conspiracy theory".

I was referring to garbage like Zeitgeist, not actual history.

I understand that we must do our best based on what we can know. For example, Socrates is another person only known through written accounts. But there are at least three independent authors of his time that corroborate his existence. Plato and Xenophon, for example both give accounts of Socrates defense against the charges that he was finally executed for.

Well for one, Socrates lived hundreds and hundreds of years earlier, and so the sources for him are obviously going to be much fewer. Secondly, he was of much greater importance to the world he lived in than Jesus was - the Greek world was obviously much smaller and more centralized than Rome. A rabble-rouser in a distant Eastern city vs. one who's practically in your backyard.

boiler

4th March 2014, 19:18

Out of curiosity, which parts? And do you believe them as told or in a different way?

I don't Believe it as its told. I believe he existed there was a man called Jesus. I don't believe he walked on water or cured sick people or had magic powers. I believe he did go about preaching and trying to help people. I believe he was touted on and nailed to a cross. I believe he did have Apostles and I think the last supper is probably true but exaggerated, Id say a few of the story's are true but totally exaggerated and having plenty added on to make it sound better. I believe the stories like him helping feeding the hungry. I don't believe he came back from the dead or the three kings following the star.

I like to think when he was talking about people devoting their life to God and the kingdom of God, that he is talking about people devoting their life to a better society. Everyone that believes in it is included. I see this as being like everyone needs to believe in communism for it to happen.

He says love your neighbor as you love yourself and he is kind and generous. Jesus had very good ethics. I think his ethics is what we need to reach communism. He wasn't a total pacifist either, there is a story where he runs the money lenders out of the temple with a whip.

My favorite thing he said was there is more of a chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering the gates of heaven.

I do believe some of the stories but I also believe they would have been totally exaggerated. I think he was one of the first revolutionaries, I like to see him as a Che Guevara type of person. And I think some Anarchists writings are kind of like the teachings of Jesus, like Kropotkin for example.

Dave B

4th March 2014, 19:36

Actually Josephus was not and could not have been Christian and that is generally recognised as such.

There are several reasons for this apart from that which can be drawn out from Josephus's own material

Thus Christian Origen writing circa 220 AD;

And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [5267] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [5268]And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txua/origenmt.htm

That statement from Origen that is pretty much also repeated in his Contra Celsum and is interesting for two reasons.

One is that it draws attention to the passage in Galatians where Paul, the scumbag, says that he had met JC’s brother.

[Galatians seems to be accepted as an authentic contemporary document even by atheists scholars and this argument/passage is used by atheist scholars who support the historicity of JC- and I have not seen it convincingly challenged by the bods that follow this kind of thing]

Also Origens statement also would seem to implicitly falsify the generally accepted fraudulent nature of “Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

As to contemporary hard evidence and datable contemporary documents etc etc.

You have to put that in context I think,

On stuff religious and bibles etc. 3000 copies of Tyndale’s New Testament were produced in 1526 and only two copies have survived.

Winstanley’s Christian communistic material, written only about 400 years ago, had been lost and were only rediscovered by Bernstien around 1900.

So much so that although Marx knew about the levellers in only general terms he hadn’t even heard of Winstanley himself.

You have to take early material from directly pro -Christian sources with a pinch of salt.

But equally anti Christian material more seriously.

Origen in writing his Contra Celsum responds to a viciously anti Christain pamphlet written by someone called Celsum.

We are obviously less interested in what the Christian Origen says than the horrid things Celsum says about Christianity itself.

Quotated Celsum doesn’t deny JC existed and in fact accepts that he was a real person; in saying that he was the son of a whore and a named roman soldier (an Archer) and a low class bloody carpenter to boot.

And who despite his divinity couldn’t rescue himself from crucifixion etc.

Origen’s material was top shelf non mainstream Christian stuff by 400AD and Origen was posthumously excommunicated I think, for ‘Platonism’, a rare privilege.

This reflected a theological split at that time.

One was that the material world, status quo and economic system in general was shit and satanic and God had nothing to do with it and was not omnipotent as regards that etc.

An appealing idea to the oppressed classes; ie blessed are the poor and the rich bastards are going to hell.

And the later idea of the divine right of kings etc and the status quo was as god wishes it.

And thus a justification for the ruling classes and thier own religious 'manufacturing consent' ideologues etc

Justin the Martyr, also prattling on in his also ‘heretical’ platonic material circa 120 AD, almost incidentally mentions that JC made yokes a ploughs and was born in a cave.

rylasasin

4th March 2014, 19:44

I believe he is a myth. At best a composite character of people who may or may not have been real (rather than a single person by the name of Jesus), horus only being a single piece of this "messiah chimera". At worst an outright fabrication.

First, Josephus. As said before he wasn't a christian. He was a jew who denied he was the savior.

Secondly he wasn't an eyewitness or had any realistic access to any of them. (he wasn't born until 37AD, and he didn't start on the book until 94AD)

Third, and most damning, was that he himself admitted that he wasn't building this story on any historical facts but on religious texts. And I quote:

"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures." "I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following." - Antiquities of the Jews -- Preface

Tacitus is the other one. Though why they even bother with him is simply boggling.

1st he was born later than Josephus was, and didn't start writing until about a decade later after Josephus was.

2nd he was writing about what christian cults at the time believed, not about the historicallity of Jesus. He even calls them a “most mischievous superstition” right after talking about them.

There's no record that a shoemaker called Caius made shoes either. But that doesn't mean shoemakers aren't real.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ummm.... What the fuck?!

First of all, we know shoemakers are real because we have documented evidence, and indeed existing examples of shoemakers. Secondly this isn't the argument being made.
The argument here is "There is no record that a shoemaker called Caius made shoes. So Caius most likely never existed, and even if he did it's not historically significant enough to actually matter."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Sorry but in science, we don't work that way. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) It's up to the positive claimant to provide evidence of existence, not the skeptic to provide evidence of absence.

Axiomasher

4th March 2014, 19:48

Josephus and Tacitus are the primary sources, who confirm independent Christian accounts. it's worth noting that Price is an extreme minority in his field and that his work -- and the work of the Jesus mythicists -- haven't convinced other biblical and classical scholars who have, put together, tons of scholarship and reading in their fields. in terms of this debate existing in academia, it's a lot similar to the global warming debate in academia. that is, there is none and the minority scholarship that does exist to support that extreme view is mostly for the consumption of people who are looking for scholarship to fit their foregone conclusions.

As far as I know there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, even the Gospels are generally accepted as being a few decades older than the period in which they situate the Jesus they speak of. Josephus and Tacitus are, perhaps, independent sources but they too are not contemporaneous and come after, AFAIK, at least the earliest Gospel writings.

DOOM

4th March 2014, 20:03

Jesus of Nazareth was probably a real, historical person.
But Jesus Christ, with all these wonders and stuff?
Don't know, I'll let the christians decide that for themselves.

BIXX

4th March 2014, 20:59

Also every time someone pulls some Zeitgeist shit out of their add they are automatically discredited- the zeitgeist guy never proved any of his claims, and many of them were incorrect. He had a staggeringly weak understanding of religion, and from what I saw in his first movie, anything else.

Blake's Baby

4th March 2014, 22:29

...

Ummm.... What the fuck?!

First of all, we know shoemakers are real because we have documented evidence, and indeed existing examples of shoemakers. Secondly this isn't the argument being made.
The argument here is "There is no record that a shoemaker called Caius made shoes. So Caius most likely never existed, and even if he did it's not historically significant enough to actually matter."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Sorry but in science, we don't work that way. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) It's up to the positive claimant to provide evidence of existence, not the skeptic to provide evidence of absence.

I'm an archaeologist. I know that if something isn't there, there can be two reasons; 1 - it was never there - maybe it never existed; 2 - it was there, but it's moved/decayed/been destroyed in a volcanic erruption.

So, as a 'scientist' you'd claim that if there is no evidence for something now then it never happened? And yet... how can you possibly demonstrate that no-one called Caius ever made shoes? I'm prepared to bet that someone called Caius did make shoes. In fact, I'll bet you my head. If you ever find out the names of every shoemaker in the Roman Empire (hell, I'll make it easier for you, in the Western Empire) and find out that there was no-one on the list called Caius, I'll go to Switzerland and sign the documents allowing you to cut my head off.

It's not that Caius never existed; after all, we have shoes. Someone made them. It's not demonstrable that anyone called Caius made any shoes but on balance of probablity, it's easier to believe that Caius existed than he didn't. To believe he didn't would require believing that there was some sort of conspiracy among shoemakers for 500 years not to call their offspring Caius (a pretty common male name in Roman circles).

As for Jesus, it's utterly unknowable that he existed. But balance of probablility says that a real preacher around AD30 who was executed for sedition/blasphemy, and whose followers decided he was the Messiah, is more likely than believing there was no preacher called Joshua who was executed for sedition/blasphemy, and who acheived some followers as a result of a bizarre conspiracy.

Crabbensmasher

4th March 2014, 22:42

From what I understand, there were a lot of guys going around claiming to be "Speaking For God" at the time. I like to think the movement just picked up one of them named Jesus, called him son of God, and rolled with it.

Loony Le Fist

5th March 2014, 01:40

Actually Josephus was not and could not have been Christian and that is generally recognised as such.

@Blake's Baby
Josephus wasn't a Christian.

Noted. Thank you for the clarification

This fact has already been pointed out to me. Ty.

rylasasin

5th March 2014, 03:06

I'm an archaeologist. I know that if something isn't there, there can be two reasons; 1 - it was never there - maybe it never existed; 2 - it was there, but it's moved/decayed/been destroyed in a volcanic erruption.

A good scientist must assume #1 unless there is sufficient evidence to believe #2. To do otherwise is argument by assumption.

So, as a 'scientist' you'd claim that if there is no evidence for something now then it never happened?

Incorrect. As a scientist I'd claim that if there is no evidence for something now, then there is no reason to believe that it did happen. If empirical evidence presents itself, that statement must change to follow suit.

That is how proper science works. You don't start with a baseless assumption and challenge the opposition to disprove it. It is up to YOU to prove the initial assertion.

And yet... how can you possibly demonstrate that no-one called Caius ever made shoes?

You just don't get it, do you? Positive claims require positive evidence. It is not up to me to demostrate that no one called Caius ever made shoes. It is up to YOU to prove that he DID.

I'm prepared to bet that someone called Caius did make shoes.

But unless you can prove that, you must assume that this is not the case until evidence is presented. Otherwise this is a baseless assertion.

It's not that Caius never existed; after all, we have shoes. Someone made them.

But it does not follow that someone shoes exist, therefore someone named Caius created them. All that you can say on the matter without evidence to support it is "Someone made shoes, we know shoes are not natural objects because we don't observe them in nature and we have documentation on the creation of shoes and the production process for making shoes and people who exist today who make shoes. But we do not know who made the shoes back then"

To try and say that "We have shoes, therefore Caius made them" is non-sequitur fallacy. This is like saying "I have a computer, therefore Dell made it". (Spoiler alert: No they didn't. I custom made it myself.)

It's not demonstrable that anyone called Caius made any shoes but on balance of probability,

"Probability" does not make a valid argument for the existence of "caius" any more than it does the invalidity of evolution by probability. This is argument from assertion. Just because something is likely to be true or likely to be false doesn't mean it is.

it's easier to believe that Caius existed than he didn't.

Ease of belief does not make a valid scientific argument. Its easy for me to believe that there is a teapot floating around in space that some astronaut chucked into space during a moonwalk. Yet unless there is sufficient evidence to believe so, there is no reason anyone should take this claim seriously.

To believe he didn't would require believing that there was some sort of conspiracy among shoemakers for 500 years not to call their offspring Caius (a pretty common male name in Roman circles).

Again, burden of proof. All it requires is a simple lack of evidence. You are making argument by assertion fallacy by assuming a positive without evidence and then proclaiming that it must take some grandiose conspiracy to assume this assertion is false.

Seriously, you argue like a half-bit creationist. :glare:

Sabot Cat

5th March 2014, 03:07

I don't think it's particularly parsimonious to conclude that there was no historical Jesus; the theory that Jesus was a fictional character or mythic invention does not have superior explanatory power compared to the theory that he was a real person, and implicitly rests on an unverified assumption that the latter theory does not rely upon.

As well, let's consider the amount of deified individuals, cults of personality and founders of new religious movements versus the quantity of mythological characters spontaneously created as more-or-less contemporary figures as a baseline of probability. It was much more fashionable in the Roman Empire for cults to borrow foreign religious elements, or to make a popular figure a demigod(dess) or god(dess). I could see a cult dedicated to a Romanized Yahweh emerging along with those dedicated to Mithras and Isis, but the incorporation of Jesus into that narrative is probably and parsimoniously because he actually existed and fostered a cult of personality around him.

Ritzy Cat

5th March 2014, 04:05

I think Jesus was real and did exist - but did not do the bizarre miracles he was supposedly said to have done in the Bible.

Zostrianos

5th March 2014, 04:13

Most scholars are of the opinion that Jesus really did exist, but the Jesus of history and that of the gospels are different people. Gospel writers embellished the story, creating their own mythologized version of Jesus. Have a read of "Did Jesus exist" by Bart Ehrman. He makes an irrefutable case for his existence.

Now the hypothesis that Jesus may never have existed is certainly possible, but comes with a load of problems. For one, although Jesus' teachings are not entirely new, his style of using certain expressions, particularly in his parables, is quite unique. Another problem that few people address is if Jesus never existed, then who exactly made up the Jesus story and those teachings, and what exactly were his/their motivations?

It's a near certainty that Jesus existed, even if the Jesus of the gospels is very different from the historical one. Scholars propose that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic teacher whose followers modified his story like I mentioned earlier, believing him to be the son of God and attributing miracles to him. There are stories in the Bible that have been proven false, such as the massacre of the innocents by Herod, and the reasons for Jesus' crucifixion (he was not executed for being the Son of God, but because he preached about a kingdom in a Roman occupied territory, which raised the alarm among the ruling romans). That said, the basic possibility that he existed makes more sense than the alternate. People back then would never have invented a story of a teacher or spiritual leader who was crucified: crucifixion was seen as the most undignified way to die, reserved for the lowest of the low. Another is Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, which most scholars view as factual because it's embarrassing for Christianity: if Jesus really was the son of God, why would he need to be baptized? Yet another, often seen as the most embarrassing verse in the Bible, is when Jesus said in Mark that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" when referring to the end of the world. He was certainly wrong about that prediction, and a fraudster would never have made such a precisely timed prophecy knowing he might be wrong - he would have kept it vague. Thus the most logical conclusion is that there was indeed a Jesus, even if his biblical version might not be entirely accurate.

And is it that far fetched that a 1st century apocalyptic teacher actually existed? I'm not talking about miracles here, or the resurrection, or anything else tacked on to him by his followers. I'm addressing the basic premise that there was a preacher going around in 1st century Judea whose name was Jesus. Given the popularity of such teachers back then, it's the most likely possibility.

Now as to the lack of contemporary historical mention is not really an issue: Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher, who mainly preached around villages in Palestine and was thus a rather obscure figure during his own lifetime. Most of the miracles attributed to him have also been described as apocryphal. It's thus not surprising if most of the late antique world was initially unaware of his existence, aside from his initially small number of followers in Judea. There are Jewish figures mentioned in the Talmud whose historicity is not disputed, and yet they're unattested in non-Jewish literature from the same age. There's good reasons why pretty much every reputable scholar today, even the most skeptical ones, accept Jesus' existence. It was only after Paul started going around that Jesus became known more widely.

Here's a relevant quote by Ehrman on the lack of historical evidence:

"In that connection, I should reiterate that it is a complete “myth” (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived. If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any. Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that Pilate ruled for ten years, between 26 and 36 CE. It would be easy to argue that he was the single most important figure for Roman Palestine for the entire length of his rule. And what records from that decade do we have from his reign—what Roman records of his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interviews, his judicial proceedings? We have none. Nothing at all. I might press the issue further. What archaeological evidence do we have about Pilate’s rule in Palestine? We have some coins that were issued during his reign (one would not expect coins about Jesus since he didn’t issue any), and one—only one—fragmentary inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 that indicates that he was the Roman prefect. Nothing else. And what writings do we have from him? Not a single word. Does that mean he didn’t exist? No, he is mentioned in several passages in Josephus and in the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo and in the Gospels. He certainly existed even though, like Jesus, we have no records from his day or writings from his hand. And what is striking is that we have far more information about Pilate than about any other governor of Judea in Roman times.5 And so it is a modern “myth” to say that we have extensive Roman records from antiquity that surely would have mentioned someone like Jesus had he existed."

Dave B

5th March 2014, 20:10

Actually the prophesy in the gospel documents is more than just evidence that JC existed it is ‘evidence’ at least in part that it was written within a generation of JC existing.

The prophesy appears to state that JC will return before everybody then living had died; which would be [was] accompanied by a series of dramatic cosmological events like the ‘heavenly bodies’ [planets] being driven from their courses etc.

You would have to be mad to write down a prophesy after it never happened.

The Celsum material for me is really interesting as he is clearly a hostile source who never even speculates as to the non existence of JC as a line of attack.

Who Celsum was even Origen didn’t know, he was merely asked as the only Christian intellectual to refute the attacks on Christianity contained in a pamphlet that was circulating.

At least one book has been written devoted to the date and origin of Celsum; dates ranged from approximately 100-170 AD.

Celsum’s own stuff , which ‘must’ have been written before 220AD, demonstrates a very detailed knowledge of the gospel material.

Celsum chooses to rationally criticise and mock the interpretation of the events rather than that they actually occurred.

He particularly ridiculed the idea of a low class bod appearing as a ‘demi-god’.

That also carried over into Celsum’s criticism of pre 220 AD Christians themselves, who he described as all uneducated low class types (and women), which for him was a reflection of the quality and seriousness of the idea etc

Origen doesn’t deny that Christianity was a movement and belief system of or popular with ‘proletarian’ and low class elements of society (and women).

This should be of dual interest as not just the historicity of JC but its original class economic base, at least in 220 AD.

And the Marxist idea that ideology, and even religious ideology, are created out of the economic positions and ‘interests’ people find themselves in.

The ruling class don’t come up with offensive stuff about large ugly and dirty animals like camels, and the rich, passing through the eyes of needles etc.

Also of interest I think in Celsum’s stuff is the discussion of JC’s physical appearance.

For Celsum, as if the idea that JC was a member of low working class status wasn’t bad enough, as precedent for demi-gods, he was also according to Celsum a short ugly bastard.

Which went against the standard pattern of God’s being well endowed and looking like movie stars and Robert Powell,

I mean even today we should all be swayed by that powerful argument; when are our heroes represented to us as anything other than physically beautiful?

Apart from maybe ‘Roseanne’ and ‘Coronation Street’ as it used to be in the 1970’s

Origen it seems accepts that JC, as regards appearance, was no oil painting but claims that that was prophesised in Isaiah; no problem there then?

Origen then admits that he had heard reports that JC was a midget but thinks that that might not be true, and reserved judgement on it.

All a very peculiar debate to between two heavyweight intellectuals in 220 AD about someone who never existed.

There was also a discussion of magic, of the David Blaine nature, in which Celsum implicitly seems to accept that JC had done some clever tricks.

Which is a bit startling for a materialist like myself, deeply sceptical as you might expect regards the miracle stuff.

There is, albeit middle ages, anti Christian Judiac material that describes JC as a ‘magician’.

Just suppose for the moment that we are analysing the gospel material as a work of fiction like ‘Animal Farm’ or ‘Mansfield Park’.

What was the standard contemporary Old Testament and for that matter Roman ideology?

If you were economically down on your luck and even ‘disfigured’ in someway; well that was your punishment or the punishment of your ancestors misdeeds for displeasing an interventionist god.

The US southern slave owning theologians used that in a famous passage from the old testament to justify slavery.

And inverted, or reverted back to the original as JC seems to address it ; blessed are the ‘Calvinistic’ rich as a demonstration of god’s approval.

Jay NotApplicable

6th March 2014, 14:19

I think if Jesus Himself came to earth again, and performed miracles right in front of people, that there would still be people who would refuse to believe.

BIXX

6th March 2014, 15:24

I think if Jesus Himself came to earth again, and performed miracles right in front of people, that there would still be people who would refuse to believe.

This, in no way, answered OP's question. Also, given your response to abortion, and now this, I suspect you're a troll.

Jay NotApplicable

6th March 2014, 15:34

This, in no way, answered OP's question. Also, given your response to abortion, and now this, I suspect you're a troll.
Or maybe I'm a person with radically different opinions than your typical anarchist.

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 15:38

Or maybe I'm a person with radically different opinions than your typical anarchist.

Define 'anarchism'. I suspect you're a troll as well, and pro lifers cannot be anarchists. Real anarchists are feminists and pro choice.

Jay NotApplicable

6th March 2014, 15:53

Define 'anarchism'. I suspect you're a troll as well, and pro lifers cannot be anarchists. Real anarchists are feminists and pro choice.

An anarchist could be loosely defined as being a person who believes in some form of socialism, and is also against hierarchical systems such as capitalism. By this definition I am an anarchist. And I'm real. So that would make me a real anarchist who is pro-life.

Loony Le Fist

6th March 2014, 16:06

An anarchist could be loosely defined as being a person who believes in some form of socialism, and is also against hierarchical systems such as capitalism. By this definition I am an anarchist. And I'm real. So that would make me a real anarchist who is pro-life.

I'm all for have a discussion about the pro-life/choice position in another thread. Is there something you wanted to offer in terms of the position of an ahistorical Jesus? I am assuming that you consider JC a historical figure. I happen to think it is a bit of an open question. Perhaps you'd like to share your thoughts on the subject.

Fakeblock

6th March 2014, 16:07

So you're a real anarchist who's against hierarchial systems, but still believe the state should prohibit women from getting abortions?

Sendt fra min GT-I8190N med Tapatalk

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 16:18

An anarchist could be loosely defined as being a person who believes in some form of socialism, and is also against hierarchical systems such as capitalism. By this definition I am an anarchist. And I'm real. So that would make me a real anarchist who is pro-life.

Loosely. You see I take pro life as being a veiled way of saying "I'm a sexist, I don't want women to have rights. If they get pregnant it's a man's choice if she has it not hers." You cannot be a legitimate anarchist and a pro lifer, why aren't you pro choice troll?

Jay NotApplicable

6th March 2014, 16:43

So you're a real anarchist who's against hierarchial systems, but still believe the state should prohibit women from getting abortions?

Sendt fra min GT-I8190N med Tapatalk

When did I ever say I believe the state should prohibit women from getting abortions? You're making things up.

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 16:46

When did I ever say I believe the state should prohibit women from getting abortions? You're making things up.

You didn't say anything about that, but still pro lifers love to restrict abortions! So you say women have a choice in another thread, but you're pro life? You're a troll.

Lenina Rosenweg

6th March 2014, 16:54

Back to the OP..

In my understanding there is no evidence or record of the historical Jesus outside of the bible. There are three historians who are thought to have mentioned Jesus..Flavuis Josephus, Philo, and Tacitus.

Josephus supposedly mentions Jesus in his "Antiquities of the Jews". These references are widely regarded as later Christian forgeries.Tacitus, writing 100 years after the historical Jesus is supposed to have lived, condemns a group in Palestine he calls the "Chretians".This may or may not refer to early Christians but doesn't say much about the existence of Jesus. Philo was a Jewish Neoplatonic philosopher who moved from Palestine to Alexandria. He wrote a very detailed, gossipy account of politics in Palestine around the first century. He mentions 8 people named "Jesus" (which seem s to have been a title, "the Annointed One", rather than a name). None of them corresponds to the biblical Jesus although one of the Jesuses was a rebel leader and was crucified.

Most likely the Jesus figure emerged as a composite of hero figures among messianic Essene communities in the post-Diasporah period.

http://www.notbored.org/resistance-introduction.html

Lenina Rosenweg

6th March 2014, 16:57

The Gnostoc Gospels by Elaine Pagels is an interesting read. There were a zillion different accounts of the life of Jesus, many had major differences with the biblical story. It was largely a matter of politics which stories became a part of the "canon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

Dave B

6th March 2014, 18:44

Tacitus on Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ)

Almost all scholars consider these references to the Christians to be authentic.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#cite_note-32)

there is a better source for the existence of Christianity by 69 AD from no less that Engels ie his dating of the Revelation of John.

That begins;

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm

there is the following for other sources besides its partisan nature and interpretation etc;

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sourc es.htm

The non canonical gospels can be entertaining and vary considerably in ‘authenticity’.

Some of interest might be the nativity gospel of James which used to be highly popular and perhaps has a better early provenance than the canonical ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

And;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

Bits of that appeared in the Quran re JC turning some clay into a bird etc.

The Quran for what it matters has JC born of a virgin Mary [under a palm tree for variation].

Some of the early extra curricula Christian material can be quite entertaining according to your taste.

Dave B

6th March 2014, 19:22

Contra Celsum- just to get a flavour of it etc

CHAP. LXXV.

To the preceding remarks he [..Celsum...] adds the following:

"Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have been different From that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble."

Now it is evident by these words, that when Celsus wishes to bring a charge against Jesus, he adduces the sacred writings, as one who believed them to be writings apparently fitted to afford a handle for a charge against Him; but wherever, in the same writings, statements would appear to be made opposed to those charges which are adduced, he pretends not even to know them!

There are, indeed, admitted to be recorded some statements respecting the body of Jesus having been "ill-favoured;" not, however, "ignoble," as has been stated, nor is there any certain evidence that he was "little." The language of Isaiah runs as follows, who prophesied regarding Him that He would come and visit the multitude, not in comeliness of form, nor in any surpassing beauty: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? He made announcement before Him, as a child, as a root in a thirsty ground.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen166.html

the Isaiah quote comes from 53;2 onwards

The whole thing and argument etc follows the then standard format of the socrates dialectic.

Its a pity that even though Celsum throws everything including the kitchen sink at Christianity the one thing he doesn't do is to question JC's historicity.

Jay NotApplicable

7th March 2014, 02:13

So you say women have a choice in another thread, but you're pro life? You're a troll.

Right...Because it's impossible for someone to think something is wrong without wanting to get involved with restricting it. Like smoking crack. With your logic it's impossible for me to think it's wrong to smoke crack while at the same time thinking it should be legal.

BIXX

7th March 2014, 03:03

Fakeblock

7th March 2014, 08:06

Right...Because it's impossible for someone to think something is wrong without wanting to get involved with restricting it. Like smoking crack. With your logic it's impossible for me to think it's wrong to smoke crack while at the same time thinking it should be legal.

Yeah being 'pro-life' is a political position. Having personal qualms with something doesn't necessarily lead to taking a political position against it (e.g. being personally against abortion doesn't necessarily mean being pro-life, being personally against smoking crack doesn't necessarily mean being against crack legalisation etc). The question comes down to whether or not you support the woman's right to choose. If you do you're not pro-life, if you don't you couldn't possibly be a 'real anarchist', by your own definition.

bropasaran

7th March 2014, 09:35

Lenina Rosenweg

8th March 2014, 00:35

Of course that no one who tries to have rational opinions will believe in the mythological parts, but why would one doubt that Jesus the religious teacher existed. Ah, because all these uncertainties regarding the sources. The same 'argument' can be probably be used to doubt the existence of Socrates, Pythagoras, Homer, Zoroaster, Mohammad, Krishna, Buddha, Laozi, Confucius, probably a bunch of other historical figures no one doubts. Who doubts the existence of Apolonius of Tyana? No one. Not being a Christian doesnt mean one should have anti-christian bias. I mean, there are some real arguments that can be used against Christianity, but this just makes one look silly. And btw there are some nice bits from the Gospels which can be used as a critique of behaviour of virtually all bible-thumpers, e.g. I just love it when Chomsky mentions "Jesus' definition of a hypocrite" when talking about double standards prevalent in american culture :grin:

Well, this is a bit of a strawman argument.Just because other mythico-historical figures are given a free pass as to their existence still doesn't lend credence as to the existence of the historical Jesus.

As to the examples you mentioned that people doubt the existence of...

doubt the existence of Socrates, Pythagoras, Homer, Zoroaster, Mohammad, Krishna, Buddha, Laozi, Confucius, probably a bunch of other historical figures no one doubts. Who doubts the existence of Apolonius of Tyana? No one.

Krishna is a Hindu god who probably doesn't literally exist. There is a theory that he may have been based on a historical figure from the early Vedic Aryan period in India but who knows.Homer may have been a mythical figure, many scholars doubt his actual existence.The same with Laozi.

There is a theory that Mohammed never existed.

As far as some of the the other figures
Confucius-Kung Fu Tzi probably existed as a Chou dynasty sage.The Buddha probably existed. There are references to Socrates not just from Plato but Xenephon and I believe several other writers.Anyway there are multiple references to these figures and their existence is more believable than that of Jesus.

I don't know about Pythogoras and Zoroaster. My understanding Zoroaster is a somewhat murky figure.I think there are various references to Apollonius of Tyana but I'm not sure.

http://www.socialist.net/behind-the-myths-the-foundations-of-judaism-christianity-and-islam.htm

Dave B

8th March 2014, 11:31

There is a ferocious ongoing current debate by two the expert atheists on this elsewhere eg;

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

I think the mythicism theory originated ‘around’ the “Marxist” or young Hegelian community in the mid 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strauss

The evidence for the historicity of Mohamed and the Quran is excellent I believe.

Although he was an illiterate poet and seems to have been instructed in the Abrahamic stuff by a Christian slave he owned.

Mohamed’s understanding of the old testament material that he included in the Quran is a bit eccentric I thought and looks distinctly second-hand and oral.

Baseball

8th March 2014, 13:58

A good scientist must assume #1 unless there is sufficient evidence to believe #2. To do otherwise is argument by assumption.

Incorrect. As a scientist I'd claim that if there is no evidence for something now, then there is no reason to believe that it did happen. If empirical evidence presents itself, that statement must change to follow suit.

That is how proper science works. You don't start with a baseless assumption and challenge the opposition to disprove it. It is up to YOU to prove the initial assertion.

We do have evidence that Jesus as a person existed.
We know for a fact that the religion developed in the time frames it claims, and it claimed to follow such a person. Unless, as was suggested, there was a giant conspiracy involved (a claim which you would need to present proof of existence rather than an assumption that it occurred), the evidence supports the claim that he existed.

Invader Zim

8th March 2014, 14:19

There is no 'primary source' to document the existence of Jesus. That is a fact. In other words, there is no actual contemporary record of Jesus. Take from that what you will.

We do have evidence that Jesus as a person existed.

Where? The existence of a Messianic cult, of which there were a very great many, which emerged decades after the life of the Messianic figure they worshiped, is hardly evidence of anything beyond the fact that they existed and worshiped a figure that none of them every actually met.

doubt the existence of Socrates, Pythagoras, Homer, Zoroaster, Mohammad, Krishna, Buddha, Laozi, Confucius, probably a bunch of other historical figures no one doubts. Who doubts the existence of Apolonius of Tyana? No one.

Well, I'm not going to go through all of them, but to take the first. The difference between Jesus and Socrates is that we have primary source evidence of his existence. In fact, we have three primary sources documenting the existence of Socrates; Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes. Each of these individuals independently makes reference to Socrates. No individual living at the time of Jesus makes mention of him, not one.

Of course, I'm not saying that a real individual, or perhaps individuals, were purported to be Messianic by the cultists who formed the early Christian religion. But the fact is that everything we know about the figure, or figures, was constructed long after the death of the figure illustrated in the Gospels. And there is no reason to accept its veracity.

Dave B

8th March 2014, 16:18

A problem as I see it, as Bart Erlman puts it, is that most erudite non Christian academics believe that on balance JC probably existed.

And generally the ‘far left’ in ‘completely’ rejecting’ the idea, as in their fierce attacks on Bart Erlman for instance, are discrediting themselves in their bigoted uninformed and patently bias stance.

Although the debate on this ‘far-left’ forum, even from the 'opposition' has been comparatively polite and open minded compared to what goes on elsewhere.

Some of the modern left’s traditional views on this kind of thing are frankly embarrassing.

As to the lack of contemporary evidence of JC as an ‘ignoble’ working class political figure; minus the miracles, reports of which may have been, as they were later, put down to commonplace sorcery and magic.

Well there wouldn’t be, and it would be a miracle if there was.

Do leftists believe in miracles?

Or are leftist saying that because events weren’t recorded in the mainstream ruling class media that they could not have happened?

This is transparent I think in the work of Celsum when, taking the latest likely date of 175AD, a member of the ruling class first decided to waste some very expensive paper attacking this anti ruling class movement that was beneath contempt due to its working class content of “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children”.

I don't know what long after these events happened means.

but I am guessing it is also another class attack by the intelligentsia on the oral history of;

"foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children."

When the production of a book would cost more than a years wages.