• In total there are 88 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 87 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am

Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:[quote

.
[/quote]

Hi Lady of S :)

Yes I live in the US :)

Can you give me some concrete examples of this alleged suppression of people that wish to speak out about the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus? I am curious.

Thanks :)[/quote]

Hi Ant, you have twisted what I said. What I said (or meant to say if it is not clear) is that there is no public discourse about Jesus/Bible etc that questions the validity of the stories. I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.

All public statements from politicians to t.v. game shows present anything about these topics as if they are literal fact.

That is quite different than someone not being allowed to question the historicity of Jesus life. Other than printed media and now the internet there simply is no venue for such questioning. Other than a lecture I heard on PBS of Sam Harris at the 92nd street Y in NYC. I can not think of any.

Maybe you could tell me of a t.v. show or radio program that has such discussions or that presents both a Biblical viewpoint and a skeptical of the Bible viewpoint? I mean on a pervasive basis. Not just a one shot presentation such as the one I wrote of with Sam Harris.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
13
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Let's go back to Ant's famous three criteria:

Robert,

Thank you for demonstrating your perfunctory, nonchalant familiarity with these common criteria historians of antiquity utilize when examining available evidence. Particularly as it relates to the historical Jesus.

You did not, and obviously will not attempt to apply them to the available evidence because you are treating said evidence superficially, while directing people's attention AWAY from the evidence with stories of motive, treachery, cunning, and have thrown in the world renown historical scholar "Christopher Hitchens" :roll: for good measure (which is actually quite laughable). You are novelizing this entire matter right before our eyes.

However upsetting it may be, let me direct your attention in the proper direction. It serves as a good starting point.


Independent attestation

Jesus is said to have been crucified by all four of the Gospels (and in Peter), along with Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus; in all these accounts, except Paul’s, the execution is dated to the governorship of Pontius Pilate. Pilate is known to have been governor from AD 26–36, and Jesus must have been crucified by him sometime during that period.

Jesus is said to have brothers in Mark (6:3), John (7:3), and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (9:5); moreover, Mark, Paul (Gal. 1:19), and Josephus all identify one of his brothers as James. Conclusion: Jesus probably did have brothers and one of them was probably named James. This could also serve the criteria of dissimilarity.

A number of sources attest that Jesus caused a disturbence in the Temple that angered the Jewish leaders and that he predicted the Temple would be destroyed ( Mark 11:15; John 2:15; Mark 13:2; John 2:19; Gospel of Thomas 71). Conclusion: It appears that the cleansing of the Temple and the prediction of its destruction go back to the historical Jesus.


Dissimilarity

Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist—it was widely assumed in early Christianity that a person who was baptized was spiritually inferior to the one who was doing the baptizing (cf., the dialogue between Jesus and John found only in Matt 3:15–16).

Jesus’ crucifixion—the idea that the Messiah would be crucified was scandalous for most Jews, who thought that the Messiah would be a figure of grandeur and power who would overthrow the forces of evil to bring in God’s kingdom (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:23).


Jesus’ betrayal by Judas, one of his own followers, (multiply attested)—this might make it appear that Jesus was lacking in authority or power, even over those closest to him.
Sometimes the criterion can be applied to specific sayings. For example, in Mark 8:38, it is not at all clear that the cosmic judge (the “Son of Man”) who is coming from heaven to wreak havoc on the earth is Jesus himself—even though Christians were completely and unambiguously convinced that it was.

The parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 is similar. However, the notion of salvation on the basis of doing good things is contrary to the early Christian belief that salvation came from believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus - DISSIMILAR!


Contextual Credibility

Give it a shot again, Robert. You can not and will not because you have already made up your mind about the Bible in general. A good investigator does not wear horseblinders.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
13
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

lady of shallot wrote:
ant wrote:[quote

.
Hi Lady of S :)

Yes I live in the US :)

Can you give me some concrete examples of this alleged suppression of people that wish to speak out about the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus? I am curious.

Thanks :)[/quote]

Hi Ant, you have twisted what I said. What I said (or meant to say if it is not clear) is that there is no public discourse about Jesus/Bible etc that questions the validity of the stories. I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.

All public statements from politicians to t.v. game shows present anything about these topics as if they are literal fact.

That is quite different than someone not being allowed to question the historicity of Jesus life. Other than printed media and now the internet there simply is no venue for such questioning. Other than a lecture I heard on PBS of Sam Harris at the 92nd street Y in NYC. I can not think of any.

Maybe you could tell me of a t.v. show or radio program that has such discussions or that presents both a Biblical viewpoint and a skeptical of the Bible viewpoint? I mean on a pervasive basis. Not just a one shot presentation such as the one I wrote of with Sam Harris.[/quote]

I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.
What you've indicated is called "junkyard source"
You need to look elsewhere for good, sound, open dialogue that is encouraged regarding this matter. You can do an internet search and see if you can attend discussion forums held by scholars re matters like this (and similar).

The public at large is not interested in anything other than tidbits of information that are easily digested. Their sources are exactly those that you are highlighting.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
13
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Socrates isn't a can of worms
That does not mean it can not be critically scrutinized in the same manner as the gospels.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6503
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2730 times
Been thanked: 2666 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:Robert, Thank you for demonstrating your perfunctory, nonchalant familiarity with these common criteria historians of antiquity utilize when examining available evidence. Particularly as it relates to the historical Jesus. You did not, and obviously will not attempt to apply them to the available evidence because you are treating said evidence superficially, while directing people's attention AWAY from the evidence with stories of motive, treachery, cunning, and have thrown in the world renown historical scholar "Christopher Hitchens" :roll: for good measure (which is actually quite laughable). You are novelizing this entire matter right before our eyes.
I agree with Interbane that Ant is entertaining, as his ridiculous statements provide a very good foil to explain how threadbare the Historical Jesus tradition actually is. I have not made perfunctory statements, but rather have made sound and true assertions that are entirely in line with actual evidence. Ant is the flat earther who is saying 'look, if the world was moving we would all fall off.' Seems logical at face value, except it is utterly risible.

Ant would apparently have us believe there is no treachery and cunning involved in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in antiquity, and its totalitarian elimination of all religious diversity. Okay, all those popes were saints, whatever you say Ant.

Ant underlines evidence, as if that emphasis makes fiction into fact. Anonymous hearsay is not evidence. But that is all we have for Jesus - and it all comes from people with motive to invent fiction, or from useful idiots like Origen.

Incidentally, we see here a fine use of the oratorical device of the ad hominem argument in Ant's derision of Christopher Hitchens. Astute readers will note I mentioned Hitchens as one who agrees with Ant on this topic, but who in this instance is illogical. Hitchens, bless his eternal soul, is tough enough that we do not need to worry about speaking ill of the dead. However, the substance in this case is that Hitchens says Jesus was such a weirdo that he must have been real, an argument that applies equally to Thetans, Don Quixote and any other fictional character.
However upsetting it may be, let me direct your attention in the proper direction. It serves as a good starting point.
Independent attestation
Jesus is said to have been crucified by all four of the Gospels (and in Peter), along with Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus; in all these accounts, except Paul’s, the execution is dated to the governorship of Pontius Pilate. Pilate is known to have been governor from AD 26–36, and Jesus must have been crucified by him sometime during that period.
Ignore the Bible as it is not independent and is full of contradictions and impossibilities. Provide specific citations for Josephus and Tacitus on the crucifixon. Then I will demolish them. This 'evidence' is all butt music.
Jesus is said to have brothers in Mark (6:3), John (7:3), and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (9:5); moreover, Mark, Paul (Gal. 1:19), and Josephus all identify one of his brothers as James. Conclusion: Jesus probably did have brothers and one of them was probably named James. This could also serve the criteria of dissimilarity.
Going back to the post I cited earlier, which Ant assiduously ignores, Church Father Origen said Paul's reference to James as Brother of the Lord was "not … by blood … as because of his virtue and doctrine". It is no wonder the bigots are circumspect about Origen, who was quite a hero for the emergence of Christian dogma. The detail of Origen's argument provides a trail of wreckage that is incompatible with the myth of the historical Jesus, completely undermining the main standard apologist arguments about Josephus and Paul.

L Ron Hubbard produced some 65 million words on Dianetics and Scientology. Conclusion? Dependent references are worthless.
A number of sources attest that Jesus caused a disturbence in the Temple that angered the Jewish leaders and that he predicted the Temple would be destroyed ( Mark 11:15; John 2:15; Mark 13:2; John 2:19; Gospel of Thomas 71). Conclusion: It appears that the cleansing of the Temple and the prediction of its destruction go back to the historical Jesus.
Your faith is touching. I am impressed by your devotion. Shame it is totally irrelevant to any actual question of evidence. Josephus and Philo mention far less significant political events in the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, but not this one. If it happened they would have mentioned it. Conclusion: it is fiction.

Oh, and by the way, John and the Synoptics could not even get their story straight. Talk about hopeless collusive witnesses. The second chapter of John explains that Jesus drove out the money changers at the start of his ministry. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) say it was on Palm Sunday, at the start of Holy Week, just days before Christ’s Crucifixion.
Dissimilarity
Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist—it was widely assumed in early Christianity that a person who was baptized was spiritually inferior to the one who was doing the baptizing (cf., the dialogue between Jesus and John found only in Matt 3:15–16).
I recently debated this one with another anonymous poster by the name of ApostateAbe, who presents exactly the same views as ant. These sort of theological speculations are worthless as historical evidence, because the Bible is describing mythological allegories. It is interesting to speculate about what the Bible really meant by these sort of stories, but if we are honest, we will leave the apologetics behind and treat it as sublime fiction.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6503
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2730 times
Been thanked: 2666 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Check out this superb blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/ ... -stand-up/

Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
January 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm JT Eberhard
David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, has sent in a phenomenal guest post. Dave is an all-around great guy and a hell of a speaker. He’s always a crowd favorite at Skepticon.

Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

Is the “Jesus of History” any more real than the “Jesus of Faith”?
(From the upcoming book, Jesus: Mything in Action, by David Fitzgerald)

Christianity had a good, long run. But we are long past the point where it’s reasonable to be agnostic about the so-called “Jesus of Faith.” It’s ridiculous to pretend the lack of historical corroboration of the spectacular Gospel events, let alone the New Testament’s own fundamental contradictions, aren’t a fatal problem for Jesus the divine Son of God.

For example:
Why does Philo of Alexandria discuss the contemporary state of first century Jewish sects in several of his writings, but not a word on the multitudes who followed the miracle-worker and bold, radical new teacher Jesus throughout the Galilee and Judea – or of all the long-dead Jewish saints who emerged from their freshly opened graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem, appearing to many?
If Jesus was really found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, why was he not simply stoned to death, as Jewish law required (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4 h & i)? Why is the original trial account of Jesus so full of other unhistorical details and just plain mistakes that could never have actually happen as portrayed? How can each successive gospel continue to overload the original story with their own additional layers of details that are mutually incompatible with the others?
Why does Seneca the Younger record all kinds of unusual natural phenomena in the seven books of his Quaestiones Naturales, including eclipses and earthquakes, but not mention the Star of Bethlehem, the pair of Judean earthquakes that were strong enough to split stones, or the hours of supernatural darkness that covered “all the land” – an event he would have witnessed firsthand?
Why can’t the Gospels agree on so many fundamental facts about Jesus’ life and ministry, such as what his relationship to John the Baptist was – and why was John the Baptist’s cult a rival to Christianity until at least the early second century?
Who were Jesus’ disciples, and why is it no Gospels agree on who they were? Why do the disciples disappear so quickly in the New Testament after the Gospels, only to pop up again centuries later when churches start spinning rival legends that they were busy founding Christian communities all along? If any were martyred for their faith, as Christians frequently insist, why don’t we have any details of any of the disciples’s deaths in the bible?
When his skeptical Roman opponent Celsus asks the early church father Origen what miracles Jesus performed, why can Origen only respond lamely that Jesus’ life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, “but from what other source can we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?” (Contra Celsum, 2.33)
Why can’t the Gospels agree on so many fundamental facts about Jesus’ life and ministry? For instance, if he was born during the reign of Herod the Great, or over a decade later, during Quirinius’ tenure? Or why he was arrested? Or on which day he died? Or whether he appeared alive again for just a single day, or for more about a week, or for forty days? Or where and when he appeared alive again, and to whom?
Why are there so many anachronisms and basic mistakes and misunderstandings about first century Judean Judaism? Why are the Gospels all written in Greek, not Aramaic? Why do Christians insist that they are eyewitness accounts when none claim to be, or even read as if they were, or if all contain indications that they were written generations later?
Why is Paul – and every other Christian writer from the first generation of Christianity – so silent on any details of Jesus’ life? Why do they display so much ignorance of Jesus’ teachings and miracles?

Despite the frequent boasts in the New Testament of Christianity spreading like wildfire, attracting new converts by the thousands with every new miracle or inspired sermon, why does Christianity remain a struggling, obscure cult of feuding house churches on the fringe of Roman society for more than three centuries?


Why is there not a single historical reference to Jesus in the entire first century; a pair of obviously interpolated snippets in the works of Flavius Josephus notwithstanding?

We could pose similar thorny questions all day and never run out of them. It’s embarrassing to have to dignify any of the obvious mythological elements of the Gospels, and yet the better part of 2.1 billion people seem unaware of how ludicrous any of them are. We don’t even have to rule out whether or not miracles even can occur, or point out that stories, delusions and lies are common while verified miracles are few if any – we merely have to ask: if they did happen, why didn’t anyone else notice them? Christians are perfectly free to put their faith in whichever messiah they please, though it will take more than blind faith and selective hearing to convince the rest of us that their Christ is anything more than a Jesus of their own making. But what about the real Jesus?

Apologists love to parrot the old lie that “no serious historians reject the historicity of Christ,” but fail to realize (or deliberately neglect to mention) that the “Historical Jesus” that the majority of historians do accept is at best no more than just another first century wandering preacher and founder of a fringe cult that eventually became Christianity – in other words, a Jesus that completely debunks their own.

For your average atheist activist, all this should be more than enough to settle the matter. But the truth is, the issue isn’t even that cut and dry. What about this “Historical Jesus” at the core of all this legendary accretion? Can we actually know what the real Jesus of Nazareth really said and did?

Over a decade ago, after reading Ken Smith’s hilarious and brilliant Ken’s Guide to the Bible, I became curious to know the answers to questions like these. (Very) long story (very) short: I began researching the historical evidence for Jesus, a process of pulling a thread that, for me, unraveled the whole sweater. The result is my book Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All. And I really mean it; I’m convinced there couldn’t even have been an ordinary guy behind our familiar Jesus of Nazareth. No, really. more ...
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:
lady of shallot wrote:
ant wrote:[quote

.
Hi Lady of S :)

Yes I live in the US :)

Can you give me some concrete examples of this alleged suppression of people that wish to speak out about the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus? I am curious.

Thanks :)
Hi Ant, you have twisted what I said. What I said (or meant to say if it is not clear) is that there is no public discourse about Jesus/Bible etc that questions the validity of the stories. I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.

All public statements from politicians to t.v. game shows present anything about these topics as if they are literal fact.

That is quite different than someone not being allowed to question the historicity of Jesus life. Other than printed media and now the internet there simply is no venue for such questioning. Other than a lecture I heard on PBS of Sam Harris at the 92nd street Y in NYC. I can not think of any.

Maybe you could tell me of a t.v. show or radio program that has such discussions or that presents both a Biblical viewpoint and a skeptical of the Bible viewpoint? I mean on a pervasive basis. Not just a one shot presentation such as the one I wrote of with Sam Harris.[/quote]

I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.
What you've indicated is called "junkyard source"
You need to look elsewhere for good, sound, open dialogue that is encouraged regarding this matter. You can do an internet search and see if you can attend discussion forums held by scholars re matters like this (and similar).

The public at large is not interested in anything other than tidbits of information that are easily digested. Their sources are exactly those that you are highlighting.[/quote]


Ant it seems you completely misunderstand me continuously. "Junkyard source" is exactly what I mean when I speak of the public domain. I'm not talking about semi-private forums held privately by scholars. I am speaking of the market place if you will.

Let me put it to you this way. If you are in a Muslim country and you hear the call to prayer are you uncertain which faith is being practiced in that country? Do you think you are in a Christian country or a Buddhist country?

Well that is the way it is in America. The public profession is of the Christian faith, not Judaism, Not Islam. We swear on the Bible in court and in accepting public office. We pray at commencement exercises. It is persistent and pervasive. Because you are lock and step in tune with this viewpoint you do not question it, even to the point of noticing it which is why your response to me shows no understanding.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:
lady of shallot wrote:
ant wrote:[quote

.
Hi Lady of S :)

Yes I live in the US :)

Can you give me some concrete examples of this alleged suppression of people that wish to speak out about the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus? I am curious.

Thanks :)
Hi Ant, you have twisted what I said. What I said (or meant to say if it is not clear) is that there is no public discourse about Jesus/Bible etc that questions the validity of the stories. I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.

All public statements from politicians to t.v. game shows present anything about these topics as if they are literal fact.

That is quite different than someone not being allowed to question the historicity of Jesus life. Other than printed media and now the internet there simply is no venue for such questioning. Other than a lecture I heard on PBS of Sam Harris at the 92nd street Y in NYC. I can not think of any.

Maybe you could tell me of a t.v. show or radio program that has such discussions or that presents both a Biblical viewpoint and a skeptical of the Bible viewpoint? I mean on a pervasive basis. Not just a one shot presentation such as the one I wrote of with Sam Harris.[/quote]

I mean on T.V., radio, etc.etc.
What you've indicated is called "junkyard source"
You need to look elsewhere for good, sound, open dialogue that is encouraged regarding this matter. You can do an internet search and see if you can attend discussion forums held by scholars re matters like this (and similar).

The public at large is not interested in anything other than tidbits of information that are easily digested. Their sources are exactly those that you are highlighting.[/quote]


Ant it seems you completely misunderstand me continuously. "Junkyard source" is exactly what I mean when I speak of the public domain. I'm not talking about semi-private forums held privately by scholars. I am speaking of the market place if you will.

Let me put it to you this way. If you are in a Muslim country and you hear the call to prayer are you uncertain which faith is being practiced in that country? Do you think you are in a Christian country or a Buddhist country?

Well that is the way it is in America. The public profession is of the Christian faith, not Judaism, Not Islam. We swear on the Bible in court and in accepting public office. We pray at commencement exercises. It is persistent and pervasive. Because you are lock and step in tune with this viewpoint you do not question it, even to the point of noticing it which is why your response to me shows no understanding.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

This is a very rare example of a skeptical view of the Christian message. It is delightful esp considering that this movie dates from l1965.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZUufk7 ... re=related
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
13
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
ant wrote:Robert, Thank you for demonstrating your perfunctory, nonchalant familiarity with these common criteria historians of antiquity utilize when examining available evidence. Particularly as it relates to the historical Jesus. You did not, and obviously will not attempt to apply them to the available evidence because you are treating said evidence superficially, while directing people's attention AWAY from the evidence with stories of motive, treachery, cunning, and have thrown in the world renown historical scholar "Christopher Hitchens" :roll: for good measure (which is actually quite laughable). You are novelizing this entire matter right before our eyes.
I agree with Interbane that Ant is entertaining, as his ridiculous statements provide a very good foil to explain how threadbare the Historical Jesus tradition actually is. I have not made perfunctory statements, but rather have made sound and true assertions that are entirely in line with actual evidence. Ant is the flat earther who is saying 'look, if the world was moving we would all fall off.' Seems logical at face value, except it is utterly risible.

Ant would apparently have us believe there is no treachery and cunning involved in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in antiquity, and its totalitarian elimination of all religious diversity. Okay, all those popes were saints, whatever you say Ant.

Ant underlines evidence, as if that emphasis makes fiction into fact. Anonymous hearsay is not evidence. But that is all we have for Jesus - and it all comes from people with motive to invent fiction, or from useful idiots like Origen.

Incidentally, we see here a fine use of the oratorical device of the ad hominem argument in Ant's derision of Christopher Hitchens. Astute readers will note I mentioned Hitchens as one who agrees with Ant on this topic, but who in this instance is illogical. Hitchens, bless his eternal soul, is tough enough that we do not need to worry about speaking ill of the dead. However, the substance in this case is that Hitchens says Jesus was such a weirdo that he must have been real, an argument that applies equally to Thetans, Don Quixote and any other fictional character.
However upsetting it may be, let me direct your attention in the proper direction. It serves as a good starting point.
Independent attestation
Jesus is said to have been crucified by all four of the Gospels (and in Peter), along with Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus; in all these accounts, except Paul’s, the execution is dated to the governorship of Pontius Pilate. Pilate is known to have been governor from AD 26–36, and Jesus must have been crucified by him sometime during that period.
Ignore the Bible as it is not independent and is full of contradictions and impossibilities. Provide specific citations for Josephus and Tacitus on the crucifixon. Then I will demolish them. This 'evidence' is all butt music.
Jesus is said to have brothers in Mark (6:3), John (7:3), and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (9:5); moreover, Mark, Paul (Gal. 1:19), and Josephus all identify one of his brothers as James. Conclusion: Jesus probably did have brothers and one of them was probably named James. This could also serve the criteria of dissimilarity.
Going back to the post I cited earlier, which Ant assiduously ignores, Church Father Origen said Paul's reference to James as Brother of the Lord was "not … by blood … as because of his virtue and doctrine". It is no wonder the bigots are circumspect about Origen, who was quite a hero for the emergence of Christian dogma. The detail of Origen's argument provides a trail of wreckage that is incompatible with the myth of the historical Jesus, completely undermining the main standard apologist arguments about Josephus and Paul.

L Ron Hubbard produced some 65 million words on Dianetics and Scientology. Conclusion? Dependent references are worthless.
A number of sources attest that Jesus caused a disturbence in the Temple that angered the Jewish leaders and that he predicted the Temple would be destroyed ( Mark 11:15; John 2:15; Mark 13:2; John 2:19; Gospel of Thomas 71). Conclusion: It appears that the cleansing of the Temple and the prediction of its destruction go back to the historical Jesus.
Your faith is touching. I am impressed by your devotion. Shame it is totally irrelevant to any actual question of evidence. Josephus and Philo mention far less significant political events in the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, but not this one. If it happened they would have mentioned it. Conclusion: it is fiction.

Oh, and by the way, John and the Synoptics could not even get their story straight. Talk about hopeless collusive witnesses. The second chapter of John explains that Jesus drove out the money changers at the start of his ministry. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) say it was on Palm Sunday, at the start of Holy Week, just days before Christ’s Crucifixion.
Dissimilarity
Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist—it was widely assumed in early Christianity that a person who was baptized was spiritually inferior to the one who was doing the baptizing (cf., the dialogue between Jesus and John found only in Matt 3:15–16).
I recently debated this one with another anonymous poster by the name of ApostateAbe, who presents exactly the same views as ant. These sort of theological speculations are worthless as historical evidence, because the Bible is describing mythological allegories. It is interesting to speculate about what the Bible really meant by these sort of stories, but if we are honest, we will leave the apologetics behind and treat it as sublime fiction.

It is abundantly clear that a presuppositional antipathy toward theism is responsible for the blind dismissal of scholarly research by some of the most prominent, credentialed men in this field of study. When the heart of someone's argument is it's all just a pack of lies, or the even more absurd implication that "they're all in on it together because they are all really Christian apologetics" you know it's a desperate attempt to push forward rhetoric that is as vacuous as Doherty's Astrology research, which is really nothing more than Pulp History. I'm embarrassed that anyone would have the audacity to refer to it as a paradigm.

Interesting :)
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”