It's not that the evidence 'for' is particularly strong but the alternatives are piss weak. Were we discussing the existence of Boudica no one would be arguing especially against peer reviewed material, despite the evidence being a lot less.

ooooh; nothing to see here; look over there.

The Boudicca, Hannibal, Alexander, Lincoln, Julius Caesar, et cetra ad naseam gambit has been dealt with numerous times.

Everyone knows by now it's a red herring.

What stirs up so much interest in this case is that this fellow Jesus was claimed to be a god. And over 2 billion people on this planet believe it.

Owdhat wrote:It's not that the evidence 'for' is particularly strong but the alternatives are piss weak. Were we discussing the existence of Boudica no one would be arguing especially against peer reviewed material, despite the evidence being a lot less.

The evidence for Boudica cannot be used for any other character.

There is NO strong evidence for an HJ.

The argument that Boudica existed therefore Jesus existed is void of logic.

Now, there is an abundance of evidence to argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

The very NT, the very Bible, claims Jesus was the Logos, God Creator, the Son of God who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and then ascended in a cloud just moments after he commissioned his disciples.

Owdhat wrote:It's not that the evidence 'for' is particularly strong but the alternatives are piss weak.

If the evidence 'for' is not particularly strong, the probability 'for' is low.

This argument has been stated many times before but to repeat it..............Occams Razor shaves away the improbable until only the probable remains which would state that after removing all the supernatural, all the contradictions and the fact that people before and to that point historicised mythical tales as the truth, a very strong case can be made to dismiss a HJ.

proudfootz wrote:The Boudicca, Hannibal, Alexander, Lincoln, Julius Caesar, et cetra ad naseam gambit has been dealt with numerous times.

Everyone knows by now it's a red herring.

This thread specializes in going round in circles if we want to reopen your barrel of self proclaimed red herrings we can. Nothing can be shelved on the internet. Soon somebody will be along asking why the only writings are from Christian sources (again) and we'll be sliding all over red herrings once more.

Owdhat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The Boudicca, Hannibal, Alexander, Lincoln, Julius Caesar, et cetra ad naseam gambit has been dealt with numerous times.

Everyone knows by now it's a red herring.

This thread specializes in going round in circles if we want to reopen your barrel of self proclaimed red herrings we can. Nothing can be shelved on the internet. Soon somebody will be along asking why the only writings are from Christian sources (again) and we'll be sliding all over red herrings once more.

Yes, that is exactly what I was pointing out - the Boudicca dodge has been used before and thoroughly discussed. Whether there really was an Adam, a Methuselah, an Abraham, etc has no bearing on whether there was an Alexander, a Hannibal, or a Socrates. Each figure must be considered on their own merits.

It's not that the evidence 'for' is particularly strong but the alternatives are piss weak.

I agree the evidence 'for' is not particularly strong. And it seems it gets weaker the more we know about the times and the culture where the figure of Jesus seems to have originated.

I take it the 'alternative' to there having been a specific individual person upon whom the figure of Jesus was based is that there was no such person. What sort of 'evidence' would be required to consider that something doesn't exist? It would seem one of the hallmarks of the non-existence of someone or something would be lack of evidence that it did in fact exist.

There is of course the excluded middle - that there isn't definitive evidence to decide between these two poles. This would take into account the alleged weakness of both the 'for' and 'against'.

Were we discussing the existence of Boudica no one would be arguing especially against peer reviewed material, despite the evidence being a lot less.

Were we discussing Boudicca no one would be especially upset that based on the evidence the figure could be a romantic fiction.

If there were evidence for a specific person behind the figure of Jesus we'd be discussing that instead of Boudicca.

proudfootz wrote:

Owdhat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The Boudicca, Hannibal, Alexander, Lincoln, Julius Caesar, et cetra ad naseam gambit has been dealt with numerous times.

Everyone knows by now it's a red herring.

This thread specializes in going round in circles if we want to reopen your barrel of self proclaimed red herrings we can. Nothing can be shelved on the internet. Soon somebody will be along asking why the only writings are from Christian sources (again) and we'll be sliding all over red herrings once more.

Yes, that is exactly what I was pointing out - the Boudicca dodge has been used before and thoroughly discussed. Whether there really was an Adam, a Methuselah, an Abraham, etc has no bearing on whether there was an Alexander, a Hannibal, or a Socrates. Each figure must be considered on their own merits.

It's not that the evidence 'for' is particularly strong but the alternatives are piss weak.

I agree the evidence 'for' is not particularly strong. And it seems it gets weaker the more we know about the times and the culture where the figure of Jesus seems to have originated.

I take it the 'alternative' to there having been a specific individual person upon whom the figure of Jesus was based is that there was no such person. What sort of 'evidence' would be required to consider that something doesn't exist? It would seem one of the hallmarks of the non-existence of someone or something would be lack of evidence that it did in fact exist.

There is of course the excluded middle - that there isn't definitive evidence to decide between these two poles. This would take into account the alleged weakness of both the 'for' and 'against'.

Were we discussing the existence of Boudica no one would be arguing especially against peer reviewed material, despite the evidence being a lot less.

Were we discussing Boudicca no one would be especially upset that based on the evidence the figure could be a romantic fiction.

If there were evidence for a specific person behind the figure of Jesus we'd be discussing that instead of Boudicca.

The laugh of it is that the HJ that most qualified people advocate is equally as far from the Christian figure as the conglomerated mixed up figure advocated by the less fanciful MJ internet gang, but fits existing evidence better if your not swayed by the Christian KGB theory of dastardly fiendish monks altering everything in sight to fit their not as yet defined super religion.

Owdhat wrote: the Christian KGB theory of dastardly fiendish monks altering everything in sight to fit their not as yet defined super religion.

err, hardly anyone/no-one is advocating anything was dastardly, or fiendish; or done by one set of monks in their lifetime/s.

More likely the story was elaborated more passivley over & by many generations of believers over at least a couple of centuries.

Owdhat wrote: ... the HJ that most qualified people advocate is equally as far from the Christian figure as [x is from b]

Really? So, what are the contrasts between these two proposed figures?

RealityRules wrote:

Owdhat wrote: the Christian KGB theory of dastardly fiendish monks altering everything in sight to fit their not as yet defined super religion.

err, hardly anyone/no-one is advocating anything was dastardly, or fiendish; or done by one set of monks in their lifetime/s.

More likely the story was elaborated more passively over & by many generations of believers over at least a couple of centuries.

Owdhat wrote: ... the HJ that most qualified people advocate is equally as far from the Christian figure as [x is from b]

Really? So, what are the contrasts between these two proposed figures?

Pretty sad that this 'christian KGB conspiracy' strawman keeps getting trotted out. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

Virtually everyone agrees the 'christian figure' is mostly bullshit - whether it is 85% or 95% or 99.9% just goes to show that the idea that the figure of Jesus as a literary invention is largely accepted by everyone with some holding that that remaining part might be based on something real but no one can demonstrate it's so.

As for the 'dastardly monks' pretty much anyone who's not a fundamentalist agrees even 'secular' sources have been tampered with.

But then, maybe there was a Noah, his ark, and a great worldwide flood. You'd have to be a loony conspiracy theorist to think someone might make that up... wouldn't you?

proudfootz wrote:There is of course the excluded middle - that there isn't definitive evidence to decide between these two poles. This would take into account the alleged weakness of both the 'for' and 'against'.

Lack of evidence for an historical Jesus cannot be a weakness for the argument that there was NO HJ.

Lack of evidence is the ONLY scenario that would be discovered if there was NO HJ.

This is EXACTLY what has happened.

No actual evidence for an HJ has been found in the 1st century before 70 CE

It can be easily argued that that there was NO HJ because of lack of evidence just as one can easily argue that he/she did not commit a crime because of lack of evidence.

All non-existent things lack evidence of existence.

Lack of evidence of existence is the FUNDAMENTAL criteria to argue for non-existence.

1. It is easily argued that the God of the Jews is a Myth because of a lack of historical evidence.

2. It is easily argued that Adam and Eve were mythological because of a lack of historical evidence.

3. It is easily argued that Satan the Devil is a Myth because of a Lack of historical evidence.

4. It is easily argued that the angel Gabriel was a Myth because of a lack of historical evidence.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth because of a Lack of historical evidence.

Only when NEW evidence surfaces can my position be reviewed.

I expected that NO historical evidence for an HJ would be found.

That is exactly what has happened for at least 1800 years.

Lack of historical evidence is precisely why there has been an on-going QUEST for an HJ after hundreds of years with multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable proposals for an HJ.

If there was an established HJ with supporting evidence there would be NO need for an ON-GOING Quest.

The on-going Quest with multiple failures is PROOF that there is NO known established evidence for an HJ.

proudfootz wrote:

But then, maybe there was a Noah, his ark, and a great worldwide flood. You'd have to be a loony conspiracy theorist to think someone might make that up... wouldn't you?

No, because Tacitus doesn't mention it.

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

But then, maybe there was a Noah, his ark, and a great worldwide flood. You'd have to be a loony conspiracy theorist to think someone might make that up... wouldn't you?

No, because Tacitus doesn't mention it.

But what about all these animals? You can't explain that without the ark and you can't explain the ark without Noah.

Occam's Razor, my friend!

I find it extremely strange that the significance of lack of evidence is not understood.

If a defendant is charged with a crime and pleads "not guilty" then it is expected that such a person would attempt to show a LACK of evidence for the charge.

It is no different when arguing that Jesus of the NT was a figure of mythology---having no real existence.

The Jesus character, even the disciples and Paul Lack evidence of existence before c 70 CE.

Now, it is important to take note of the short gMark.

It is extremely easy to deduce that the short gMark version of the Jesus was composed or known before the Pauline Corpus.

1. The short gMark has no birth narrative.

A. Birth narratives were added later in gMatthew and gLuke.

2. The short gMark has no post-resurrection visits of Jesus.

A. Post resurrection visits were added later in the Pauline writings and the Gospels of the NT.

3. In the short gMark--Jesus TAUGHT Salvation by WORKS of the Law.

A. Salvation and Remission of Sins by the resurrection is a Late Pauline Gospel even unknown to the supposed Jesus.

Most likely a good prosecutor in a court of law could tear down the evidence of the HJ piece by piece, step by step until the defence could only be left with plea bargain at best. HJ would be a strictly circumstantial evidence case with not a single piece of evidence except the circumstantial evidence of the N/T which has no basis in history at all.

angelo wrote:Most likely a good prosecutor in a court of law could tear down the evidence of the HJ piece by piece, step by step until the defence could only be left with plea bargain at best. HJ would be a strictly circumstantial evidence case with not a single piece of evidence except the circumstantial evidence of the N/T which has no basis in history at all.

HJ is not a circumstantial evidence case.

HJ would be a miss-trial because the so-called witnesses would be found to have committed perjury.

The NT is the fundamental source for stories about Jesus but every single author or writing is either a forgery, falsely attributed, riddled with false information, historical problems, discrepancies and implausibility.

If the HJ argument is brought before a court it may be that the defenders of such an argument would be charged with contempt of court for using known false "witnesses" [known and admitted false witness statements].

One useful tool for the study of literature of any kind is the recognition of parallels among different texts which might suggest relationships between them.

Dale Allison has argued that many passages in the Gospel of Matthew are parallel to the career of Moses; John Dominic Crossan has found Gospel parallels in Joshua, the poet Virgil and the funeral monument of Augustus; Rikki Watts has found detailed parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the second half of the Book of Isaiah.

These scholars are well embedded within the conventional wisdom of scholarly views. Their parallels are more likely to be taken seriously, at least considered valid topics for serious discussion.

And on it goes. Probably everyone agrees that there are real parallels between the Passion scene of Christ and the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Amos, Zechariah and others.

<full article linked below>

http://vridar.org/2014/03/20/parallels- ... ifference/

The key to the development of a body of literature, and the development of a mythos, would seem to be in how the elements are transmitted and transformed. The gospel tales present an opportunity to examine how different authors and different communities chose to shape a salvation figure meme in a particularly cosmopolitan setting.

Regardless of whether there ever was a specific man whose real biography was smothered by this savior myth most of the evidence left to is is of the development of the myth with roots deep in time and wide in geography.

The pentecostal churches I was brought up prided themselves on looking for those connections! It was taken as evidence for Jesus Christ! All Pentecostal ministers are still trained to look for these connections! See for example Dake.