angelo wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

They never wrote any 'history'. They only wrote what they presumed was history. Only text. They way people go on here you think everything is 100% verified. Most of it are fairy tales which were often adapted and changed to suit the taste of time.

They say that the Romans were meticulous record keepers, and there's not one mention about execution of any rebel rouser Jesus who may have had a few followers around the time stated. Surely if this guy caused a disturbance enough to get himself executed, the Romans would have recorded it.

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:

Stein wrote:

IanS wrote:

No it's not at all relevant. We don’t need any such early non-Christian texts expressing doubts about the existence of Jesus. That's completely unnecessary, and the demand for that is a total 100% red herring. The fact of the matter is that now in the 21st century we are quite sure, as a matter of scientific “proof”, that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are most definitely untrue fiction.

Are you really so silly as to believe that all the miracles and supernatural claims that fill the biblical stories of Jesus, are anything other than scientifically established as physically impossible fiction?

You know fucking well that's a straw man. Joseph's' Antiqs. 20 does NOT reference any of that woo, nor does Tacitus's Annals 15. You also know fucking well from the post I just referenced on page 1735 (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1864721) that I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period.

Once and for all, we are not talking here about "biblical descriptions". We are talking about Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15. And Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 are a damn sight different from ANYTHING we have for Hercules, or Odysseus, or Moses, or Noah, or Jason, or Achilles, or Romulus, or Adam, or Gilgamesh, or Abraham, or Osiris -- or God.

And now, enough red herrings. The truth is you cannot come up with any texts contemporary to Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 that contrast with those two. So you're pedaling furiously trying to get away from giving the answer to my question: The answer is, there are NO non-canonicals referencing Jesus the rabbi as mythical. Aw, poor baby.

Cry me a river.

Stein

Your post is so full of untrue raging nonsense that it's impossible to know which piece of untrue crap to dismiss first. I am not going to waste further time with your blatantly untrue claims saying that we need 1st or 2nd century non-Christian writers saying that Jesus was a myth. That is utter nonsense of the 1st magnitude. Nobody needs any such early claims of Jesus as a myth.

And your constant insistence of trying to claim Josephus as evidence of Jesus is utterly pathetic. We do not have a single word that Josephus wrote about Jesus in his lifetime. All that we have are Christian copies written 1000 years after Josephus had died! So it's absolutely absurd trying to claim that as credible evidence of Jesus via someone called "James" in some minimal few lines of anonymous hearsay coming from Christian copyists who wrote 1000 years after the original author had died! That could never be credible evidence of anything about Jesus.

And also just look at all the number of weasel-word obfuscations that you keep peppering your claims with, look at this -

" I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period."

You do not need any such subjective fanciful deductions about selecting "a highly restricted" "textrural strata" of "textural markers" that "mesh with coordinates" from 11th century Christian copies of Josephus. What you actually need, and what we actually have as "fact", is all the evidence we have today which undoubtedly and unarguably shows that the biblical writing was stacked full of untrue fictional stories about Jesus. And that is a quite certain fact, for which I just gave you and "Free" a long detailed list of evidence discovered from about 1800 until today, all of which shows beyond any possible doubt that the Jesus descriptions of the bible cannot be true.

I am not going to go through all of that again for the 10th time as if you are totally unable to read it!

The very first point of evidence that I made to you was that it is only since the advent of relatively modern science, from roughly around 1850 to 1900, that people began to realise how the discoveries of science were showing that the Jesus miracles could not actually be true. That is huge, scientifically "proven", evidence directly proving that all the central claims about Jesus are now known to be quite certain fiction.

You do not need anyone in the 1st or 2nd century (as I think you requested the dates, i.e. you wanted only 1st or 2nd century written sources) telling us that they doubted the existence of Jesus. That is completely 100% irrelevant. The relevant fact is only whether or not we now have evidence showing how the bible authors wrote what has in modern times been shown to be quite certain fiction, and that has certainly been done, and done in massive great heaps as a matter of indisputable fact. And I just gave you a post listing all the most obvious examples of how the evidence deduced since about 1800 shows beyond all possible doubt that the biblical writers were certainly writing what is now known to be fiction.

Well now, let's just take a look at this long diatribe and see what's wrong with it, shall we? Yes! Yes we shall!

We don’t need any such early non-Christian texts expressing doubts about the existence of Jesus. That's completely unnecessary.

Dude, it's called the Burden of Proof. Since the Jesus Mythicist position claims that Jesus was a total myth, you are therefore required to demonstrate this un-evidenced assertion with actual evidence to support it. This evidence needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure.

Since the Mythicist position constantly calls upon the Historicist position to demonstrate evidence of their positive claim, likewise the request for evidence to support the Mythicist positive claim of total myth is reasonable, logical, and wholly on point.

Therefore, to qualify your insofar baseless assertion that Jesus who was called Christ is a total myth, please present indisputable evidence attesting to that as being factual, otherwise your assertions of total myth are dismissed as un-evidenced, unsupported, and therefore untrue.

the demand for that is a total 100% red herring

The demand for it is not a red herring, since my previous response above conclusively demonstrates that any claims that Jesus was wholly a myth are in fact positive claims. Therefore, your claim of a red herring is unwarranted, refuted, and dismissed.

So again, please provide the required evidence to support your positive claim that Jesus, who was called Christ, was wholly a myth.

The fact of the matter is that now in the 21st century we are quite sure, as a matter of scientific “proof”, that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are most definitely untrue fiction.

This assertion is left without consensus from the historians, and only demonstrates your opinion, which is easily disputed by the facts. Since we have multiple attestations of the crucifixion of Jesus from non Gospel sources, then your claim that what the Gospel narrative demonstrates is nothing more than wholly fiction is effectively and decidedly contested.

Ignoring evidence is known as the Fallacy of Exclusion, in which Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Until you include and consider all relevant information, you are demonstrating an intentional un-principled approach to the evidence in its totality, and therefore your position is being held in suspicion of dishonesty.

And your constant insistence of trying to claim Josephus as evidence of Jesus is utterly pathetic. We do not have a single word that Josephus wrote about Jesus in his lifetime. All that we have are Christian copies written 1000 years after Josephus had died! So it's absolutely absurd trying to claim that as credible evidence of Jesus via someone called "James" in some minimal few lines of anonymous hearsay coming from Christian copyists who wrote 1000 years after the original author had died! That could never be credible evidence of anything about Jesus.

Here, you are making the positive claim that Christian copyist inserted "anonymous hearsay" into the Josephus text regarding "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ."

This is another positive claim, and is subject to the same requirements of evidence to qualify it as just being possible, let alone being true. Therefore, you are required to demonstrate evidence to support this as a possibility, otherwise your assertions are again dismissed as unsupported, un-evidenced, and untrue.

Please provide the required evidence.

angelo wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

They never wrote any 'history'. They only wrote what they presumed was history. Only text. They way people go on here you think everything is 100% verified. Most of it are fairy tales which were often adapted and changed to suit the taste of time.

They say that the Romans were meticulous record keepers, and there's not one mention about execution of any rebel rouser Jesus who may have had a few followers around the time stated. Surely if this guy caused a disturbance enough to get himself executed, the Romans would have recorded it.

dejuror wrote:In effect, Stein has NO idea that gJohn is a pure myth/fiction source for Jesus the Logos and Rabbi.

Oldskeptic wrote:I thought it was a no no to use scripture as evidence?

angelo wrote:I found this. No mention of any Jesus in this lot.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/timeline-of- ... entury.php

The emergence of Christianity in the Roman Empire was based on many factors, and its spread was an indication of massive social upheaval and changing environments. This article is intended to be a look at the history of the Christian religion, and not an ideological exploration of its mystical foundation. The concept of the historical Jesus Christ and the accuracy of the Bible's 'New Testament' (only from a mystical persepective as its recognition as a historical source is generally well accepted), can be considered irrelevant in understanding Christian history. Despite the written evidence for a historical Jesus, the mystical nature of the story of the Christ has led to a timeless debate. Whether one argues for or against the divinity of Jesus, one cannot argue the impact or rapid spread of the 'Mystery Cult' that eventually came to dominate the western world. Biblical and Theologian Scholars have long debated the ancient texts and Christian theory with Archaeologists or Scholars of alternative thought on this matter. That debate will rage timelessly, but the history of the religion can be examined even without dwelling on its divine beginnings, various historical components or conversely,the roles men may have played in arranging early doctrine.

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

There were at least three persons called Jesus the CHRIST who were ANOINTED as High Priest in Jewish history.

Your son of a Rapist would NOT be called the Christ by Jews.

Your Jesus was NOT the Christ so you are really wasting time.

Your HJ is Fiction.

Free wrote:But ... you believe that Jesus, son of Damneus, was Jesus Christ, right?

I mean, when Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and you then say THAT Jesus is actually referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, then you are saying that Jesus, son of Damneus, is Jesus Christ.

So now you must admit that Jesus Christ existed.

Jesus the Christ [the Anointed] in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE when Albinus was governor of Judea.

Your HJ, the son of the IMAGINARY Rape of Mary by Panthera was already dead.

Free wrote:If Christ was indeed used as a term applicable to a high priest, as you assert, then please find me one example of one person not named Jesus who was explicitly entitled as "Christ.

Christian writers of antiquity did state that Jewish High Priest were called Christ and it is CORROBORATED in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.



No-one in antiquity have corroborated your fiction that Jesus was born AFTER Mary was raped by Panthera.

RealityRules wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
Scripture makes the claim. The evidence lies else where.

lol, where does this "evidence" lie?

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale.

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:[

Dude, it's called the Burden of Proof. Since the Jesus Mythicist position claims that Jesus was a total myth, you are therefore required to demonstrate this un-evidenced assertion with actual evidence to support it. This evidence needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure.

Your statement is quite illogical.

The NT itself is evidence that the Jesus character was TOTAL myth.

The writers ADMITTED their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God Creator from the beginning, the Lord from heaven and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

See the NT Canon and the EXISTING Manuscripts with stories of Jesus.

You claimed Jesus was born AFTER Mary was raped by Panthera but your claim is total imagined fiction. You cannot present any actual historical evidence of your imaginary Jesus and cannot provide any non-apologetic source which state your Jesus was Baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Well, well, well!!! That's so easy. We have NO manuscripts of the Jesus STORY dated to the 1st century.

The earliest manuscripts P 75 and P46 are dated to c 175-225 CE.

IanS wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:[

Dude, it's called the Burden of Proof. Since the Jesus Mythicist position claims that Jesus was a total myth, you are therefore required to demonstrate this un-evidenced assertion with actual evidence to support it. This evidence needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure.

Your statement is quite illogical.

The NT itself is evidence that the Jesus character was TOTAL myth.

The writers ADMITTED their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God Creator from the beginning, the Lord from heaven and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

See the NT Canon and the EXISTING Manuscripts with stories of Jesus.

You claimed Jesus was born AFTER Mary was raped by Panthera but your claim is total imagined fiction. You cannot present any actual historical evidence of your imaginary Jesus and cannot provide any non-apologetic source which state your Jesus was Baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

Free - by the way in addition to the reply that dejuror just gave to your quote in red (above), which I think you originally addressed to me - please show where I am what you just called a “myther” saying that "Jesus was a total myth". Be absolutely sure to respond to that question quoting from any of my posts anywhere that have said “Jesus was a total myth”.

From that assertion you then proceed to say (the red quote above”) that because I am a “myther” who is claiming that “Jesus was total myth”, I must therefore now quote to you “evidence (which) needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure“ ....

... why do I need to show you any such thing unless you can quote from any post of mine where I ever claimed Jesus was a total myth?

So please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

Free wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale.

Ohhhh how I love to expose the Fallacy of Exclusion from you mythers. This supposed mythical "tale" you speak about also includes some history regarding the crucifixion of Christ.

Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, 1st Clement, Celsum, et al.

You had One Good Move, which turned out to not be so good after all.

IanS wrote:

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:

Stein wrote:

You know fucking well that's a straw man. Joseph's' Antiqs. 20 does NOT reference any of that woo, nor does Tacitus's Annals 15. You also know fucking well from the post I just referenced on page 1735 (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1864721) that I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period.

Once and for all, we are not talking here about "biblical descriptions". We are talking about Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15. And Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 are a damn sight different from ANYTHING we have for Hercules, or Odysseus, or Moses, or Noah, or Jason, or Achilles, or Romulus, or Adam, or Gilgamesh, or Abraham, or Osiris -- or God.

And now, enough red herrings. The truth is you cannot come up with any texts contemporary to Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15 that contrast with those two. So you're pedaling furiously trying to get away from giving the answer to my question: The answer is, there are NO non-canonicals referencing Jesus the rabbi as mythical. Aw, poor baby.

Cry me a river.

Stein

Your post is so full of untrue raging nonsense that it's impossible to know which piece of untrue crap to dismiss first. I am not going to waste further time with your blatantly untrue claims saying that we need 1st or 2nd century non-Christian writers saying that Jesus was a myth. That is utter nonsense of the 1st magnitude. Nobody needs any such early claims of Jesus as a myth.

And your constant insistence of trying to claim Josephus as evidence of Jesus is utterly pathetic. We do not have a single word that Josephus wrote about Jesus in his lifetime. All that we have are Christian copies written 1000 years after Josephus had died! So it's absolutely absurd trying to claim that as credible evidence of Jesus via someone called "James" in some minimal few lines of anonymous hearsay coming from Christian copyists who wrote 1000 years after the original author had died! That could never be credible evidence of anything about Jesus.

And also just look at all the number of weasel-word obfuscations that you keep peppering your claims with, look at this -

" I restrict myself entirely to a highly restricted and consistent set of textual strata, whose consistent textual markers coincidentally (?!) mesh with coordinates around an entirely human rabbi, whose countercultural ideas simply got him nailed, period."

You do not need any such subjective fanciful deductions about selecting "a highly restricted" "textrural strata" of "textural markers" that "mesh with coordinates" from 11th century Christian copies of Josephus. What you actually need, and what we actually have as "fact", is all the evidence we have today which undoubtedly and unarguably shows that the biblical writing was stacked full of untrue fictional stories about Jesus. And that is a quite certain fact, for which I just gave you and "Free" a long detailed list of evidence discovered from about 1800 until today, all of which shows beyond any possible doubt that the Jesus descriptions of the bible cannot be true.

I am not going to go through all of that again for the 10th time as if you are totally unable to read it!

The very first point of evidence that I made to you was that it is only since the advent of relatively modern science, from roughly around 1850 to 1900, that people began to realise how the discoveries of science were showing that the Jesus miracles could not actually be true. That is huge, scientifically "proven", evidence directly proving that all the central claims about Jesus are now known to be quite certain fiction.

You do not need anyone in the 1st or 2nd century (as I think you requested the dates, i.e. you wanted only 1st or 2nd century written sources) telling us that they doubted the existence of Jesus. That is completely 100% irrelevant. The relevant fact is only whether or not we now have evidence showing how the bible authors wrote what has in modern times been shown to be quite certain fiction, and that has certainly been done, and done in massive great heaps as a matter of indisputable fact. And I just gave you a post listing all the most obvious examples of how the evidence deduced since about 1800 shows beyond all possible doubt that the biblical writers were certainly writing what is now known to be fiction.

Well now, let's just take a look at this long diatribe and see what's wrong with it, shall we? Yes! Yes we shall!

We don’t need any such early non-Christian texts expressing doubts about the existence of Jesus. That's completely unnecessary.

Dude, it's called the Burden of Proof. Since the Jesus Mythicist position claims that Jesus was a total myth, you are therefore required to demonstrate this un-evidenced assertion with actual evidence to support it. This evidence needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure.

Since the Mythicist position constantly calls upon the Historicist position to demonstrate evidence of their positive claim, likewise the request for evidence to support the Mythicist positive claim of total myth is reasonable, logical, and wholly on point.

Therefore, to qualify your insofar baseless assertion that Jesus who was called Christ is a total myth, please present indisputable evidence attesting to that as being factual, otherwise your assertions of total myth are dismissed as un-evidenced, unsupported, and therefore untrue.

the demand for that is a total 100% red herring

The demand for it is not a red herring, since my previous response above conclusively demonstrates that any claims that Jesus was wholly a myth are in fact positive claims. Therefore, your claim of a red herring is unwarranted, refuted, and dismissed.

So again, please provide the required evidence to support your positive claim that Jesus, who was called Christ, was wholly a myth.

The fact of the matter is that now in the 21st century we are quite sure, as a matter of scientific “proof”, that the biblical descriptions of Jesus are most definitely untrue fiction.

This assertion is left without consensus from the historians, and only demonstrates your opinion, which is easily disputed by the facts. Since we have multiple attestations of the crucifixion of Jesus from non Gospel sources, then your claim that what the Gospel narrative demonstrates is nothing more than wholly fiction is effectively and decidedly contested.

Ignoring evidence is known as the Fallacy of Exclusion, in which Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Until you include and consider all relevant information, you are demonstrating an intentional un-principled approach to the evidence in its totality, and therefore your position is being held in suspicion of dishonesty.

And your constant insistence of trying to claim Josephus as evidence of Jesus is utterly pathetic. We do not have a single word that Josephus wrote about Jesus in his lifetime. All that we have are Christian copies written 1000 years after Josephus had died! So it's absolutely absurd trying to claim that as credible evidence of Jesus via someone called "James" in some minimal few lines of anonymous hearsay coming from Christian copyists who wrote 1000 years after the original author had died! That could never be credible evidence of anything about Jesus.

Here, you are making the positive claim that Christian copyist inserted "anonymous hearsay" into the Josephus text regarding "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ."

This is another positive claim, and is subject to the same requirements of evidence to qualify it as just being possible, let alone being true. Therefore, you are required to demonstrate evidence to support this as a possibility, otherwise your assertions are again dismissed as unsupported, un-evidenced, and untrue.

Please provide the required evidence.

OK, so you are a true blind faith believer where Jesus is concerned. And no amount of actual evidence (as opposed your total 100% lack of any HJ evidence at all), will turn you away from your faith. Devout preaching Christians react in exactly the same way as you do.

So there's no point in me again explaining here for the 5th time why you are quite certainly wrong to claim actual direct evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone.

And why I am unarguable right, as a proven matter of scientific fact, to say that the evidence gathered against the biblical writing (since about 1800), shows beyond any doubt and beyond all argument that the biblical writing is so packed with what are now proven fictions, as to make it most definitely unreliable and lacking credibility in the extreme.

If you had a proper scientific education instead of some Mickey Mouse undergraduate history degree (as you keep telling us) then you might have learnt what genuinely objective evidence is.

And in the case of the biblical writing of Jesus, the genuine objective evidence is that which I just listed and explained for you in detail on the previous page.

The evidence of science shows that stories of miracles & the supernatural are certainly fiction.

And the biblical stories of miracles & the supernatural are so constantly filled with miracle claims and supernatural appearances etc. that any such source could never possibly stand up to objective scrutiny as a reliable credible source of historical fact.

And it does not really need any more than that to dismiss the biblical writing as "not credible". Even though, as I already described, there is also a great deal more that totally discredits all of that biblical writing.

But until you ever understand that, which you might do one day if you come to your senses, or if you ever go and get a proper education (e.g. a PhD in some mainstream branch of science, which would, as I say, give you at least the opportunity of telling the difference between what is claimed to be evidence of something vs. what actually is credible as evidence of the claim), then until you ever do that you will have to remain in the ignorance of your faith.

angelo wrote:

Free wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale.

Ohhhh how I love to expose the Fallacy of Exclusion from you mythers. This supposed mythical "tale" you speak about also includes some history regarding the crucifixion of Christ.

Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, 1st Clement, Celsum, et al.

You had One Good Move, which turned out to not be so good after all.

Not one of the gentlemen mentioned are witnesses to a Jesus.

All are writing hearsay that was floating around long before these guys put quill to parchment. At best it was third fourth generation gossip.

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

Ducktown wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

I also find it interesting how reverently HJers refer to their good news hero.

Free wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

I also find it interesting how reverently HJers refer to their good news hero.

Personally, the world would have been better off if the guy hadn't existed at all. From his form of Judaism, came Christianity, which then helped to spawn Islam.

These Abrahamic religions are responsible for Islamic extremism we see in the world today, as well as other atrocities depicted throughout history.

Exposing a human Jesus as opposed to some magical water-walking god has a far better chance of educating with the truth those who claim that the embellished life of this man are all facts. The Jesus Mythicism position only promotes the mystery of Jesus, and does absolutely nothing to discredit what billions believe to true.

History paints a far better picture of a mere man who's life was embellished to support a religious movement; a religious movement that is directly and indirectly responsible for the death and destruction of humankind en masse, and who's influence is responsible for the subjugation and oppression of some of the greatest secular minds in history, all in the name of some god.

And that is why, as an atheist, I support historicity.

Ducktown wrote:

Free wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

angelo wrote:Going into the detail is fine, but the overall true picture of the story is that it's myth historicised. Harping back to the fact that the discredited gospels are the ONLY source of the tale. In the first century, there were literally hundreds of sages and historians, both pagan as well as Jewish and Roman. Many mention Pilate, even John The Baptist. Many like Josephus write a history of the Jews starting from the mythical Adam & Eve. Not one of these writers mention a Jesus of Nazareth first hand, even though some were at the scene at the time of his birth, life and death. As Ehrman himself has stated, none of the extra biblical sources are useful in the quest for a HJ, we only have the gospels to build up a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that less than 15% of that source is useful. Endless argument is not going to solve that fact.

I also find it interesting how reverently HJers refer to their good news hero.

Personally, the world would have been better off if the guy hadn't existed at all. From his form of Judaism, came Christianity, which then helped to spawn Islam.

These Abrahamic religions are responsible for Islamic extremism we see in the world today, as well as other atrocities depicted throughout history.

Exposing a human Jesus as opposed to some magical water-walking god has a far better chance of educating with the truth those who claim that the embellished life of this man are all facts. The Jesus Mythicism position only promotes the mystery of Jesus, and does absolutely nothing to discredit what billions believe to true.

History paints a far better picture of a mere man who's life was embellished to support a religious movement; a religious movement that is directly and indirectly responsible for the death and destruction of humankind en masse, and who's influence is responsible for the subjugation and oppression of some of the greatest secular minds in history, all in the name of some god.

And that is why, as an atheist, I support historicity.

That's all very reverent and perhaps well meaning but still historically meaningless. I could do the same thing with Paul Bunyan, tell how he was just a struggling frontiersman subsisting on freedom, escaping the shackles of European monarchism, living the dream, feeding a family and helping his friends make a better world. Strip this struggling and historical dude of the trappings of heroism and culturalism that make him less of a man and more of a king. Get the words he never said and the deeds he never performed out of the way so I can just love and appreciate the man behind it all.

But of course it would all be fiction, bullshit, story. Nice things to tell around the campfire, cherished illusions that don't hold up to rational scrutiny.