Of course I didn't give much credence to a religious site because the OP wants solid proof not speculation ,you yourself agreed with what I said (quote) "I have acknowledged that proof for God cannot be found, nor can proof of the miracle-worker Jesus." and that's what I have been saying all the time,outside the NT he didn't exist


fullywired

That is not true. There are sources accepted by historians that form a consensus that he did. The ones attempting to prove he did not exist seem to have an agenda against religion, they are either pseudo-historians, or rogue historians who do not agree with the consesus. Jesus is accepted as a real historical character even if he is not accepted as a miracle worker.

Show me the sources .Has I have said previously .Josephus mentioned 19 people called jesus


fullywired

I'll take your word that 19 of them were mentioned. One of those was "Jesus, the brother of James". Yes, both names are popular, but it is exactly the same as how the Bible places it. The other reference is known to be an added interpolation, so you are right on that count. However, this reference does not state anything about Jesus' divinity or miracles, so it's only proof that he existed, not proof that he did what the Bible claimed.

And with that, I'm going to bow out of this debate. It is clear what your intentions are and if you aren't going to even look at the information, then there is no point in my being here, is there? Ad hominem it may be, but your post here fits the very nature of what I was saying in my other thread on sources of information.

Thank you for the discussion, and I wish you the best in your life journey

I will look at any proof but not uncorroborated stuff but if you feel like that OK .Take your ball in



fullywired

I'm just wondering how you know it's "uncorroborated stuff" if you didn't even look at it. I thought the source was quite good at showing how it is historical fact taht Peter lived in Rome in his later life and was subsequently martyred. If you don't think so, then so be it. But so far, you have shown no evidence that you even looked beyond the title of the webpage, saw the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and dismissed it. Which is why I have at this stage bowed out of the discussion.

Just thought I should clarify

IMHO most of the Jesus was a myth books are just not real history 'for the most'. They are entertainment. It is like watching a movie you thought was really good and allowing it either form or reinforce a world view. The real works of fiction are the Jesus was not a real historical character. Scholarship agrees Jesus did exist. No doubt there are some true unbiased scholars who have an opposing view but for the most these other writers that people are eating up their books horse and tail are not sincere historians and are the real fiction parading around as scholarship.













http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historical_views

One would hardly expect a Catholic web site to admit there was any the lack of proof of Jesus .it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas ,plus the fact that you agreed with me earlier.So what's the problem?


fullywi

That still does not take away from the fact they can still have a great deal of valid historicity on that site.

It is OK. My Jesus forgives your Jesus for not existing.

That only leaves 17 to do the same


fullywired

17 eh? lol. You often times are so cryptic. Remember men do not get hints, or subtle references, we need it splayed out for us. What do you mean 17?

You obviouisly haven't read the previous posts
When quoting Josephus on Jesus that person always neglects to tell us that Josephus mentions 19 different men called Jesus ,your post took care of two ,so there are 17 to go


fullywired

I think you'll find that there's more than enough evidence that the Early Christian and Catholic Church destroyed Anti-Christian pagan writings en masse. It's hardly a conspiracy theory. It is conspiracy fact.

And no - it's not with the exception of those that disputed Christ. As far as I know, the only ones that exist are the ones pieced together from reverse engineering quotations from Christian Writings, so complete was the Church's destruction of any Anti-Christian pagan writing.

So now the case against Jesus being an actual person is based on writings that do not exist. I understand the overall point but it really sounds like just because modern historians mostly agree Jesus did exist it is only the fault of those early Christians and later Catholics for burning the books.

Interesting - I'll do some investigation.

In the meantime, I've come across this:

Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Any idea which prophets Matthew is referring to?

I never really gave the Nazarene prophecy much thought because I thought it was talking about the more general Old Testament prophecies that can be ascribed to Jesus. I just read about two possibilities. One that emphasis should be placed on the word 'spoken' so it was through oral tradition and not written. The second has to do with Isaiah 11:1 and the word for branch in the Hebrew 'netser' as making the Nazarene prophecy valid. Either of those two explanations are rather weak historically IMHO and are grasping for straws. I have no answer to that but I do not think it makes the author of Matthew wrong but it is quite puzzling. I would like to know what it is referring too because to toss in a fabrication like that makes no sense to me but I am sure others will simply dismiss it as one by claiming it was tossed in just to make it sound more mysterious and the reader was supposed to take it on blind faith or something along those lines. On second thought Isaiah 11:1 seems very prophetic towards who Jesus was represented as and he fits the tee but it all stems on that wordplay of the word 'nester' which means branch. Jesus seems to be that branch but nester=nazoraios?

Nazarite was also used in the Old Testament and meant 'consecrated one' and the word is 'naziyr':



What is also interesting but unrelated is this wordplay and the underlined part above reads like this in the Hebrew: nadar neder naziyr nazar

Continuing with Numbers 6 we can see the consequences of breaking the Nazirite vow:



When Paul visited James it appears he had four Nazirites with him possibly:



Here is some more information I came up with regarding that but in no way sheds light on it.

While looking at the language in Matthew 2:23 the word for Nazarene, not Nazareth since it is the same but means 'guarded one', but for Nazarene as used as the very last word in that scripture is 'Nazoraios' and means 'one separated'. Blue Letter Bible also offers three different definition besides what the word actually means: 'an inhabitant of Nazareth', 'a title given to Jesus in the NT', and 'a name given to Christians by the Jews, Ac. 24:5'.

Here are a few other scriptures in the New Testament claiming similar fulfillment of prophecy:



Here are two passages in Isaiah connected to that.









I culled the beginning of this passage but if anyone reads above it it has what he was supposed to be reading off the scroll.



The Moses passage is in reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

On what basis do modern historians agree? Not a single shred of evidence exists that mentions Jesus during the time that Jesus was alive. Thousands of people gather on a mountainside / plain to hear him speak, and he's not worthy of a single line of text, somewhere, by somebody?

Actually - that's not entirely true. There are several writings that exist that purport Jesus was an actual person, such as a letter written by Jesus and his self-portrait. Unfortunately, they are all such transparent attempts at forgery that even the Catholic Church has had to dismiss them as such.

The only evidence left to Historians is the evidence that the Church did not destroy.

The case that early pagans doubted his existence is rather difficult to prove, due to the mass book burnings and executions and all, not to mention that most of them didn't even hear about Christianity until generations after his Death. Given that up until the 18th century Heretics were still being burnt at the stake by the Church, it's not too surprising that it's only in the last two centuries that the case for Jesus not existing has arisen.

Three centuries ago, I would have been burnt to death for even having this conversation.

Interesting. I've just found this on the Nazarene sect within Wikipedia, which also suggests that offshoots/branch is an alternative translation.

Oh, I do understand the Church did burn texts. But by your reasoning, I could claim there was a text that was written by a prophet clearly outlining that in the mid 20th Century a man named Elvis would change the face of music. But we don't have those texts anymore because the Church burnt them for being heretical. But they did exist, they must have.

You cannot just claim that there were texts that denied the existence of Jesus, and then say they were burnt. You can theorise that maybe there was such a text, but without proof you're still looking at a conspiracy theory. Why didn't the early church burn the texts that disputed the divinity of Jesus then? I guess they figured that people could dispute the divinity of Jesus but they couldn't dispute the existence of Jesus, and so they burnt only some of the texts.

I must respectfully disagree, Tiggs. There are plenty of early writings by critics of Christianity who wrote against the divinity of Christ, and his miracle-working. Are saying then, that the Church allowed people to say that he wasn't the Messiah..... but did not allow them to question his existence????

Three centuries ago, well more like six, I would have been condemned maybe not being burnt at the stake but definitely being put to the question.



This is quite interesting indeed one of the most intersting things I have found on this forum. I have heard before some say Jesus was a Nazarene himself but then I have to ask after touching the dead, Lazarus when he died, why did he not then have to cut his hair and undergo purification?

Then list them PA. Best of luck with that.


Again. List them.

^You yourself quoted Tyrpho, for one - But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." As mentioned earlier, this was only in reference to "the Christ", where the rest of the debate accepts the person Jesus as an historical figure.

Additionally, we have Celsus

Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Christianity.......

......Celsus wrote his work The True Word as a polemic against the Christians in approximately 178 CE., or generally between 170 and 180 CE. Celsus divided the work into two sections, the one in which objections are put in the mouth of a Jewish interlocutor and the other in which Celsus speaks as the pagan philosopher that he is. Celsus ridiculed Christians for what he perceived to be an advocacy of blind faith instead of reason. About 60 years after it was first published, the book written by Celsus inspired a massive refutation by Origen in Contra Celsum, which is our source of knowledge for Celsus, who was later condemned along with other critics such as Porphyry......

....... Celsus opens the way for his own attack by restating the arguments leveled at the Christians by the Jews. They are: Jesus was born in adultery and nurtured on the wisdom of Egypt.

And from another page of wiki - Criticism of Jesus:

Celsus accused Jesus of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Jesus with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child"[2] Celsus wrote that the father was "a certain soldier named Panthera."[3] After his birth, Celsus writes that Jesus "having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."[2]

Tertullian, a contemporary of Celsus, mentions the charge of Jesus being the son of a prostitute in the closing of De Spectaculis.......

....... Other stories are preserved in various versions of the Toledoth Yeshu.[8] For example, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier named Panthera, Pantera, or Pandira. Mary became pregnant as a result, and she claimed that she was carrying the son of God in order to hide the rape.[9]

I won't quote a great deal more, but these are just some of the accusations leveled at Christianity. And while all these references to Jesus being illegitimate, the product of rape, one who learned the art of illusion in Egypt...... none say "Jesus did not exist".

BUT, and here's the thrust of the argument - people are claiming that texts stating Jesus was completely fictional did indeed exist but were destroyed because they were deemed heretical by the Church. So Celsus, Tertullian, the Talmud, just to name a few, were not being heretical by claiming Jesus to be a b****** son of a whore (in the most literal and obscene sense), whereas someone claiming Jesus did not exist is somehow worthy of having his parchment burned. OR, the alternative is that the Church did try to burn these texts from Celsus et al, but did not manage to find them all, hence some survived. Yet we are left to argue that they did manage to find all those texts that claimed he did not exist, leaving no copy that survived. But if they couldn't find all the texts from these people, how is it a valid argument to suggest that they managed to with this. That somehow, every copy of every text that denied the existence of Jesus was somehow destroyed.

It's an illogical argument, borne out of wishful thinking to substantiate the unsubstantiated claim that Jesus did not exist.

only modern theological scholars agree that Jesus existed

A number of scholars[9] and writers, known informally as "mythicists," insist there is no convincing evidence for a historical Jesus at all. If the entire story is a myth, then he could hardly have risen from the dead.

The life of Jesus is not corroborated. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century, even though many writers documented first-hand the early Roman Empire in great detail, including careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus supposedly taught[10]. The little paragraph about Jesus that appears in Josephus' Antiquities (written after 90 CE) is regarded by liberal and conservative scholars to have been either entirely interpolated or drastically altered by a later generation of believers, probably by the dishonest Christian historian Eusebius in the 4th century[11]. (Whichever view is right, they both agree that early Christians tampered with documents, a fact that must bear on the reliability of the New Testament writings.)

The handful of 2nd-century references to "Christ" are too late to be of much value[12]. They are brief 2nd- or 3rd-hand accounts of what some people by that time believed had happened in their distant past, and none of them mention the name "Jesus." They are hearsay, not history.

The silence of Paul is also a problem. Paul wrote his letters many years before the Gospels, and it appears he was unaware of anything said in them about Jesus, except for some wording from a Last Supper ritual. Paul never met Jesus and never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels, even when that would have served his purposes. He sometimes disagreed with Jesus[13]. He never mentioned a single deed or miracle of Jesus. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man. The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.[14]

http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

To answer the original question: No.

No, PA.

The thrust of the argument is that there are few surviving anti-Christian pagan texts from which to form an opinion.

The works of Tyrpho and Celsus only exist because they've been reverse engineered from the quotes of early Christian Authors whilst refuting them.

Tyrpho comes entirely from the works of Justin Martyr and Celsus from the works of Origen. Tertullian was actually a Christian Apologist.

The Talmud itself was ordered destroyed on several occasions by the Church during the middle ages, even after the forced removal of any text regarding Jesus by censorship of the Catholic Church in the 13th century. Thankfully, due to their widespread distribution, at least some of those survived the purge.

The Church destroyed everything else.

So. Produce a list of anti-Christian pagan texts that weren't reverse engineered, or concede the point.

^ But in large part, Tiggs, that is a large part of the argument. Not a single one of these references refer to Jesus' non-existence. If texts existed that denied the existence of Jesus, why are there not Christian refutations to those, such as is the case with the aforementioned work? I'm sure you could argue that these texts might have existed. That is the best anyone can hope for. But reading through this thread, I've seen repeated references to these so-called texts that were burned as if they were historical fact and would exist except for the early-Christian penchant for burning texts.

Why, if all these other texts debating the acts of Jesus exist, are there no copies of texts, even "reverse engineered" texts, that say Jesus did not exist? As I have said repeatedly, I am not arguing here for the divinity of Jesus, nor am I speaking of the existence of God. I am only solely referring to the historical existence of a man named Jesus, upon whom the Christian religion based itself - whether the miracles attributed to him happened or not is a matter of Faith.

Seriously, I do see what you are trying to say, but we have proof of Celsus, we have proof of Tyrpho, we have no proof of anyone saying "Jesus did not exist". To argue that they existed by the texts were burned is to move into the realm of conspiracy theories, plain and simple - which is what I was attempting to point out earlier. You could claim anything was written about anyone or anything, and then say it was burned by the Church as heretical (RE: my Elvis analogy earlier). Surely you can see the point I am trying to make..... ????

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm


which Jesus?



The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:


According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.

Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

^ You know, right now I could make a comment on the fact that you are quoting "jesusneverexisted.com". You are unwilling to review an article that proves the existence and martyrdom of Peter (who claimed to know Jesus personally, and was martyred for it) on the basis of it being a Catholic site, yet in response to the evidence I have suggested for Jesus in my previous post, you bring up this equally biased site. I am more than happy to review it, but I must ask - what purpose would it serve? Why should I do what you have not? Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy????? - "I won't look at a biased site, but here's another site with equal or more bias that proves my case and you should read it".

That said, I did read and look up some information on that. What seems to be of interest is that your article makes a big deal about there being various people named Jesus. But Jesus was a popular name, so of course there are expected to be other people named Jesus. So there's more than one person named Jesus in history - that's not in doubt. It certainly does not by association disprove the Jesus we are talking about in this thread.

One point that was interesting is the correlation between Jesus and "Jesus Barabbas", or as your link said "Jesus, son of the Father", and a possibility that they were the same person. It is certainly an interesting hypothesis, and thank you for introducing me to something new I had not known before. In the interim, I did a little search around and found that not only was "Jesus" a popular name, but also "Bar Abba" was a popular name.

For one thing, as noted, the name "Jesus" was as common as Bob today. For another, the name "Abba" (and therefore, "Bar-abba" as a patronymic) was a known, and indeed common, name among the Jews; it was even carried by rabbis (Samuel bar-Abba and Nathan bar-Abba are two examples; cited by Mann in his Markan commentary [637].) Brown [Brow.DMh, 799] even records a Talmudic joke about a man who enters a room "looking for Abba" to be told "there are many Abbas here." He then asks for "Abba bar Abba" and is told there are a bunch of those, too! In addition, a pre-70 burial records the name [800]. (Also note that "Bar-abbas" actually translates as "son of father" -- there is no article (a, the) involved.) So, nice try; it's a coincidence, sure, but no more stunning than that Kennedy was assasinated while in a Ford and Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's theater.

Source

If it was such a common name that jokes went around about people "looking for Abba" only to find many in the room, then this "Jesus Barabbas" could easily be a coincidence.

Yes, I can't say I like the tone that the author has used in the article. It is an annoyingly patronizing to those who believe in the Christ-myth theory. It is also a biased site, like yours is. But at least I took the time to look at the information you provided and consider the views before replying.

All the best,

But surely you must see that no record for his non-existence (in the face of no records for his existence) isnt 'solid' proof for his existence?

"solid"? As in 100%? The fact that the early Christians believed Jesus existed, and the fact that the early critics never denied it is proof at the least that there was a person named Jesus on whom the Bible was based. Though as I have said over and over, this does not necessarily mean that the actions attributed to Jesus in the Bible did happen. It's about as close to solid as anyone can get in ancient history. But 100%? Rarely anything in ancient history is 100% solid.

What is evidence anyway?

For some established fact E to serve as evidence, you need an unresolved hypothesis H and E to be more surpising if H is false than if H is true, or less surprising, but not just the same either way.

It is not enough for E to be unsurprising if H is true... there needs to be something about E that would be surprising otherwise.

One candidate for E is "no early Common Era anti-Christian writing survives which questions Jesus' existence." It is clear enough that if "Jesus lived," then E is unsurprising. For E to be evidence, though, then it must be surprising if "Jesus did not live."

People differ in what they consider surprising. I find our candidate E unsurprising either way. Thinking about a potential anti-Christian writer's tactics, I believe that in a debate, you attack where you can score, not where if only you could score, then the game would be over.

How could any debater establish even decades later that so-and-so never lived? Much better, I think, to take the opposition's reports as they come, and to question whether the miracles were genuine, or commensurate with the claims advanced on Jesus' behalf.

I would not expect much flat-out "Jesus never lived" writing to have been produced, and thus, I am unsurprised that none survives - whether or not H is true.

In closing, a note about the Catholic source for Peter's claims.

What mainly distinguishes Catholicism from other Christian churches is the proposition that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all Christians, and is specially guided by God, the Holy Spirit for that role.

To bolster the claim, it would be helpful if Peter was once the Bishop of Rome. So, Catholic apologists have a stake that Peter personally led the Roman Christians, and so that Peter was physically in Rome, and so that Peter lived.

Having a stake in the outcome does not invalidate anyone's opinions. But it is perfectly appropriate, IMO, to point out when a source has an unusually large stake in some question about which they opine. No Peter, no Pope, is a mighty big stake for Catholic analysts.

Yes but it would be a bit of cheek on your part after posting this previously (quote PA)"And what does the nature of the site have to do with what I posted? What does it matter if it's a catholic site?." So your saying you can link biased sites but I musn't It's a case of "don't do what I do ,do as I say


fullywired

No but it can influence their conclusions


fullywired

The fact that early Christians believed is not proof of any kind.no more than you believing today is proof . If that's close to solid ,I'll eat my hat


fullywired

I just open my window and I look at the Universe and the order of the natural things and I praise the Lord!!! that's all the evidence needed...

Not proof but evidence. But the fact that there is no outside contemporary recordings of him can also be considered quite plausibly (at least some historians would agree) to be evidence against Christ's existence. My point is that the possibility is quite a plausible one.




We could say the actions or his existence attributed to him didnt happen. The evidence is as valid as each other. Should we then say that his miracles must have happened because there is no recordings written at the time that there was no miracles?

I think you are not seeing the bigger picture. There are many people who lived near to Jesus who wrote about him (yes, you are right that no one wrote about him while he was alive, but I addressed that issue earlier when dealing with his influence and actions during his lifetime). Some of these people wrote in support of Jesus. Others wrote against him. Yet NO ONE said "Jesus never existed". That did not happen until the 18th Century. The earliest of Christian critics accepted Jesus' life as historical fact. As I have said again and again though, this is not referring to the miracles spoken of in the Bible, only the existence of Jesus.

And yes, that is "solid evidence". I don't like stating things in absolutes most of the time, but right at this time, I am willing to say that Jesus' existence is without doubt an historical fact. Now, his life as a miracle worker and son of God...... that is a different story. That - I must take on Faith.

True, but I was making a hypothetical - ie, I could say something like that, not I would say something like that. If you'll notice, I did answer that link you gave - something you have yet to do for my link. Incidentally, I notice that again you completely ignored the link I provided in this quote. I guess it's ok for you to ignore links that you perceive as biased..... so in this case, I guess the "don't do what I do, do as I say" comment seems to be squarely in your court at this time.

"



There is no point in answering your link ,we are looking for solid "historical " evidence not theological evidence .Can you imagine a theological site saying that Jesus didn't exist even if they thought it was true .There's more chance of you getting nettled to death in Woolworths


"I am willing to say that Jesus' existence is without doubt an historical fact. " What you are willing to say and what you are able to prove are two different things

fullywired

The list of historical sources has been presented. I can do so again later if anyone is too lazy to scroll back. The majority of historians agree that Jesus did exist. Is that a hard fact to grasp surely some cannot be that much into denial just because they dislike those who follow Him not as a historical person but as Messiah? The historical case though has already been made and accepted. That is scientific fact as far as history is a science. Someone has a better chance at saying Alexander the Great does not exist and they too would be laughed out of any serious discussion. Unfortunately we have to sit through endless people offering books written by conspiracy theorist claiming Jesus did not exists and they then believe them as fact.

Then there is no point having a discussion. I'm sorry I even went back into a dialogue with you. i thought that since we had moved on slightly from the topic I originally bowed out from there might be some new things to discuss. You quoted "jesusneverexisted.com", and in reply, I provided a source which was written (albeit, by a Christian) in direct refutation to that article. And you say there is no point in you answering my link????? So I will again respectfully bow out of debate with you, but considering the new replies I have received, I doubt I will use my time engaging again with you in the future. Again, best wishes for whatever path you choose to follow

I wish I had a £1 for every time some Christian uses "the majority of historians "routine and then brings Alexander into the arena as if that some how proves Jesus existed.,

we are not trying to prove alexander existed or julius caesar we are looking for historical evidence of Jesus.and you nor anyone else has provided any





fullywired

What on earth will I do now???


Fullywired

Alexander was brought up only to disprove your legend conspiracy. Funny how you defer the Alexander point now as if it was not in response to that and that alone.

Other than that compare the bold in the quote above to the whole of the quote below.




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

You might want to read the discussion page where that conclusion is regarded as completely unsupportable and is only present due to an ongoing edit war.

That is the issue with the Jesus Myth. Most in academia do not even touch it one way or another since it has nothing to do with real history and in some cases mythology. Why would they waste their time talking about it? Like most rubbish it is ignored by mainstream academia so they remain silent. That leaves us with the two camps: those who support the Jesus Myth because of their dislike not for the history of Jesus but for the followers that in turn has the followers who have a liking for either history or mythology refute it knowing most parts of the Jesus Myth is weak.

For those who have not been keeping track the Jesus Myth is that Jesus was a myth and not a real person.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis

Keep in mind wikipedia is not as weak as it was before. Anyone can edit but if rubbish is added it is usually removed by editors who will remain non-biased and present accurate information. If others attempt to vandalize a page repeatedly it will be locked leaving what is generally considered to be true among most in academia. Anyone though outside of that above can discuss what they wish on the discussion pages as long as it pertains to the topic somehow. It is a good place to start any exploration but branching out to other sources and books is highly recommended.

Oh please. Appeal to Wikipedia authority?

This thread is about the evidence for Jesus's historical evidence. Linking to Wikipedia pages with disputed neutrality or which are in constant edit war is not a winning refutation.

So far, you have no solid evidence whatsoever.


So, no list, then?

As I said before - there's not enough evidence available to draw any conclusions. In either direction.

So far you've listed Tyrpho, who in all probability was an invention of Justin Martyr, and Celsus, who's entire work no longer exists - just parts which Christian authors have quoted whilst refuting.

The list of evidence has been posted several times. A few historians. I will not keep posting it again on replay that is for sure. Surely the discussion can go another way instead of others just calling foul. Anyone who posts facts I will do my best to acknowledge them and agree or refute them as I have been attempting to do so. PA has made good cases but some have simply dismissed his points without an interest to discuss or dissect them. I would rather discuss than merely disprove...there is a difference and one is vastly more satisfying...at least to me.

I have seen no smoking gun and no point which has not yet been utterly refuted. Feel free to list them.

I have posted a compiled list of historians who point out to it several times. If it was dismissed the first time and no one cared to actually throughly discuss facets from one of those historians or another and get into the real nitty gritty of history then I have no interest. Someone did post a blanket list that quickly had a sentence or more for each of those historians claiming how it was all false. Ya, history is false mmkay. Anyways this debate is growing stale with the Jesus Mythers just hammering the same trite and trivial points repeatedly. It seems the history of this thread is lacking but if it is mythology we want then maybe mythology it shall be. If someone actually wants more views and are wanting to explore all sides of comparing Jesus to mythology go here to start off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_...ative_mythology

If anyone wants to actually discuss and not just play point and counterpoint feel free. So far Tiggs is the only one who has brought some valid points to the table and is willing to discuss in depth a point or two before moving on to another instead of blankly posting quotes from Jesus Myth conspiracy books. I love true history and mythology which Jesus Myth conspiracy books are not. With all the holes in them it makes me wonder if they are actually written by Christian apologists or on the other hand just written as propaganda pieces which propaganda is not designed to stimulate the intellect but rather strike emotional accords.