Proof of Jesus?

[clairobscur]

I disagree. Your list omits several sources, such as Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar-Serapion and the Babylonian Talmud.

Pliny the younger wrote about christians, not about the Christ himself, and I never said that christians didn’t exist. Moreover, he was writing 80 years after the supposed facts. Even assuming he would have been writing about Christ, he would have likely used christian sources. Once again, do you believe that there was widely available records, in the roman empire, about the supposed execution of an obscure jewish prophet?

I put the Babylonian talmud in the “late Jewish sources which seems to be more a reaction to an already widely held and official belief” category

Lucian of Samosata lived at the end of the second century, 150 years after the facts, and was reacting to already existing christian beliefs. I honnestly can’t consider him as anything even remotely related to a witness.

I must admit my total ignorance about Mara ben Serapion. So, he could (or could not) be a 6th source.

Moreover, your list also lumps the various New Testament sources – the gospel accounts AND the various epistles – all into one, despite their disparate authorships.

Yes, because they’re all a part of the scriptures, an organized set of documents supporting a religious faith and selected and edited by believers on the basis of their agreement with the tenets of their religion. There’s no way I’m going to consider them as independant sources.

As for the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” viewpoint, I think that’s oversimplifying. When the absence of evidence for one’s case is most conspicuous, it can present an argument against that case. To cite a comical example, there is no evidence of any widespread race of centaurs in Europe. While this does not automatically disprove the Greco-Roman myths, it does detract from their veracity.

I’m not sure to understand your point. If you mean that similarily the lack of evidence of any ressurection detract from the veracity ot said resurection, I would agree with you.

Lib pointed out the absence of ancient writings which said, “These Christians are fools! Jesus never existed!” I believe his point is that the absence of such writings is most odd, if the ancients truly knew that there was no Christ.

This is a good argument. However I see three issues, here :

-We have no direct writings from the earliers opponents of christiannity. We have only “refutatios” of some of them by christian authors refuting their arguments. So, we only know about some of these “anti-christian” authors, and only about their arguments christian authors were willing to adress. There’s no way to tell if they ignored or not some compelling arguments, for instance. If all we knew about a SDMB poster was the posts written by people disagreeing with him, it would be rather unreliable. Opponents routinely ignore the good arguments, adress only the feeble ones, and do not hesitate to misrepresent their adversaries views. Once again, i’ve a very limited confidence in the will of the church and believers to honestly report and keep for centuries evidences contradicting their beliefs, or even supporting them not strongly enough.

-Though there are no surviving accusations about “inventing” the christ, there are accusations about christians conveniently rewriting their scriptures when they see fit.
-Even more important, I don’t think that “ancient truly knew there was no Christ”. I plainly believe they didn’t know. As I already said, I doubt there still was still surviving evidences of archives about 100 or 150 years old events supposed to have occured in a remote part of the empire. It’s not like the ancient could have easily consulted the judicial archives of Jerusalem, or checked the “Jerusalem Post” , year 30 A.D. to see if there was articles about a guy walking on water or even crowds gathering to listen to a famous rabbi. They couldn’t rely on oral traditions, either, since there can’t be an oral tradition about the non-existence of someone. Even assuming that a piece of archive from the sanhedrim mentionning Jesus would have somewhat existed, and survived for a century or two, despite the destruction of Jerusalem, I strongly doubt that ancient authors would have spend years searching for this unlikely document.

We’re not talking about the modern world, here.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by Libertarian *
**
The United States recognizes twenty-four exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay. There is no reason to treat all hearsay as the same.*

Agreed. Moreover, should we seriously suggest that historians can ONLY write about matters to which they have been eyewitnesses? Do you folks have any idea how much history we would need to discard, using that standard?

[clairobscur]

Is there someone who can verify that you wrote that post? Someone who wouldn’t be suspicious by being a friend or co-worker of yours, I mean.

Not even a friend or co-worker, I’m alone at home. But what your point? Indeed, there’s no proof I’ve actually written my posts above. but, then, there isn’t any remarkable claim in my posts. And if there was such claims, I’m pretty certain you wouldn’t take them at face value, and would ask for a cite for a reliable independant source.

When I wrote the post you quoted (“I’m extremely suspicious about texts concerning a faith which are handed to me by a believer”), I was actually thinking about a friend of mine who explained me once that her favorite indian guru would have animated and made dancing a sugar (???) statue. She would hand me whatever magazine in which this “fact” was reported. For some reason, it didn’t appear to me as a satisfactory evidence. I doubt you would have thought otherwise.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**
Pliny the younger wrote about christians, not about the Christ himself, and I never said that christians didn’t exist. Moreover, he was writing 80 years after the supposed facts. **

I think you’re oversimplifying. First of all, while Plinly wrote primarily about the Christians, he did speak of Christ as though he were an historical person. Adn second, even though he wrote 80 years after the fact, he is still considered to be a fundamentally reliable historical source.

Professional historians do not automatically reject sources, simply because they were written a few decades after the events recorded. A reliable historian is fully capable of accurately recording past events, sifting the reliable from the dubious – after all, that’s what historians DO.

**
I put the Babylonian talmud in the “late Jewish sources which seems to be more a reaction to an already widely held and official belief” category**

Be that as it may, it nowhere denies the historicity of Christ or his crucifixion. These would be most unusual omissions for a source that is critical of the Christian church, and which claims that his miracles were merely acts of sorcery (b. Sahn. 107b; t. Sabb. 11:15; b. Sabb. 104b; b. Sota 47a). In addition, this text corroborates details of the crucifixion event (e.g. its occurence during Passover), and introduces details which are absent from the gospels (e.g. the presence of an announcer who proclaimed that Christ was to be stoned).

Lucian of Samosata lived at the end of the second century, 150 years after the facts, and was reacting to already existing christian beliefs. I honnestly can’t consider him as anything even remotely related to a witness.

Once again, are you seriously suggesting that only eyewitness accounts should be accepted? That’s not how professional historians operate. That viewpoint may seem reasonable to laymen, but as Dr. William Lane Craig said, it is positively medieval in its approach to historicity.

I must admit my total ignorance about Mara ben Serapion. So, he could (or could not) be a 6th source.

He was a non-believer, and spoke of Christ as an actual person.

**
Yes, because they’re all a part of the scriptures, an organized set of documents supporting a religious faith and selected and edited by believers on the basis of their agreement with the tenets of their religion. There’s no way I’m going to consider them as independant sources.**

I don’t see that as a reasonable objection. If Christ was an historical person, then it’s only reasonable for some sources to develop the same opinion on him – especially if he had proven himself to be the Messiah, and most especially if the Resurrection actually occured. To insist that the New Testament authors should only be considered a single source – well, that indicates prior bias, a predisposed desire to reject sources that speak favorably of Christ.

[clairobscur]

The absence of contrary records is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything at all. But when extraordinary claims are made — particularly claims that threaten the political lives of powerful men — it seems reasonable that there might be some reaction, some denial, some word of some kind that says these people are liars. Other than from you and the good folks at Infidels, I mean.

And perhaps we would have such records if these powers had been successful and the christian religion has dissapeared. But it happens that this religion has triumphed and has chosen which records would be kept and copied. Should I be surprised that only elements supporting the christian views have survived?

[clairobscur]

---

The myths of Jesus and Hercules share important similarities.

What a loaded assertion! Myths? Important? Similarities? So, you’ve already decided that Jesus is mythical despite your assurances that you aren’t trying to prove it. You apparently are deciding what is important. And there are similarities between the sun and a tennis ball. So what?

Refering to a Jesus myth doesn’t mean one assume there was no Jesus at all.

A definition of myth :

“a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon”

It seems to me that the gospels perfectly fit this definition.

Yes, if I read a book about the son of a god who has extraordinary powers, say…Achille, for instance, I call that a myth. It doesn’t necessarily means I’m absolutely certain there never was a jewish rabbi crucified in Jerusalem nor a greek warrior killed at Troy.

[clairobscur]

But there is no evidence to support the assertion that people of the time were talking about The Jesus during or immediately after his lifetime in any significant manner (remember, we haven’t even established that he existed at all!).

That is demonstrably false. We already cited various authors who DID mention Jesus and/or the Christian church.

That is ** not** demonstrably false. If you think so, please demonstrate.
Please note the words “during or immediatly after his lifetime”. There are no elements dating back to this time.

[clairobscur]

I’m fed up with waiting for hours for my answers to be posted (especially since for some reason I must login again between each post) and also with painfully trying to express my mind in english. So, I’m just going to adress briefly the arguments about what should constitute a historical proof in this case .
Yes, historians don’t rely only on eyewitnesses, and there are historical figures for the existence of whom we have less evidences than Jesus. But :

-For many important figures, historians can rely on, for instance, archeology to back and complete written evidences. This is obviously if not totally impossible, at least extremely unlikely for a mythical figure like Jesus who didn’t create an empire, build palaces, named city after himself, minted money, waged wars, etc…
-People reporting the life of Jesus are biased. Caesar writing “De Bello Gallico” is biased too. Sure. But “De Bello Gallico” isn’t filled with stories about Caesar walking on the water or talking with centaurs. Objectively (which means for anybody except someone who hold a belief in Jesus or Horus divinity), these texts contain a lot of blatant lies. This necessarily makes these main sources very suspicious, doubtful and unreliable.
-The textual evidences about most historical figures haven’t been thoroughly filtered and epurated for centuries by biased people and institutions which had an advantage in selecting only the evidences supporting their opinion. They haven’t been transmitted only through these people or institutions, either. The VII° century christian monk copying an old text penned by Cicero or Caesar had no particular interest in supporting either point of view. Copying an anti-christian or a pro-christian text was another matter entirely. And what we can read now has essentially always be copied by someone similar to this hypothetical VII° century monk.
-The most important argument : extremely few, if any, people would create a character out of thin air except when religion is involved (the only other case I can think of are mythical ancestors). All people, at all times have told story of heroes, prophets and gods. There are massive number of texts about Ameratsu, Thor, Hercules or Horus. Despite this abundance of “evidences”, extremely few historians, if any, would take at face value the historicity of these figures without some other independant and conclusive evidences. Like it or not, the standart of proof for a mythical figure is harsher than for a general.

In other words, you would want us to admit Jesus historicity with the same standarts that we would apply to, say, Horemheb. We would want you to apply the same standarts that you would apply to, say, Achilles.

[Liberal]

Not even a friend or co-worker, I’m alone at home. But [what’s] your point? Indeed, there’s no proof I’ve actually written my posts above. but, then, there isn’t any remarkable claim in my posts. And if there was such claims, I’m pretty certain you wouldn’t take them at face value, and would ask for a cite for a reliable independant source.

Darn tootin’. And that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

If you started reporting that you have a friend who claims that government has no legitimate authority over him, that the highest leaders of the world’s “great” religions are corrupt to the core, that he can heal the sick, raise the dead, and in fact did himself appear to you after his execution for treason — I wouldn’t need cites; I’d see it on CNN and Fox and MSNBC. I’d also probably see the movie on HBO, I would also want to come there for myself and interrogate every person involved about these extraordinary events. So would a lot of men with guns and gold. But I’d have to get in line WAY behind them.

It doesn’t necessarily [mean] I’m absolutely certain there never was a jewish rabbi crucified in Jerusalem nor a greek warrior killed at Troy.

Do you believe that, on the sum of the evidence, there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was the son of Mary and the brother of James, and who lived sometime near the early first century, and is now worshiped by somewhere around two billion of the world’s people?

[Liberal]

For many important figures, historians can rely on, for instance, archeology to back and complete written evidences. This is obviously if not totally impossible, at least extremely unlikely for a mythical figure like Jesus who didn’t create an empire, build palaces, named city after himself, minted money, waged wars, etc…

Maybe not an empire, but what do you call the Vatican?

People reporting the life of Jesus are biased. Caesar writing “De Bello Gallico” is biased too. Sure. But “De Bello Gallico” isn’t filled with stories about Caesar walking on the water or talking with centaurs. Objectively (which means for anybody except someone who hold a belief in Jesus or Horus divinity), these texts contain a lot of blatant lies. This necessarily makes these main sources very suspicious, doubtful and unreliable.

Perhaps it makes them arguably unreliable for certain claims. But this debate isn’t about whether Jesus walked on water or spoke to multitudes on the steps of the temple in Jerusalem. It’s about whether there existed a man named Jesus of Nazareth. To say that He never lived isn’t simply to say that all these people (and we haven’t even discussed what writings might have circulated before the destruction of Jerusalem) are telling tall tales. You’re saying that they made up a whole person and wrote stories about Him, tying Him to important events and powerful politicians — and most remarkably, that those powerful people made no official move whatsoever to dispell any such stories.

That defies credibility.

The textual evidences about most historical figures haven’t been thoroughly filtered and epurated for centuries by biased people and institutions which had an advantage in selecting only the evidences supporting their opinion.

Nonsense. Good heavens. That’s exactly what has happened with every historical figure of any significance. Washington. Jefferson (both of them). Stalin. Alexander. Siddartha. The list goes on and on.

All people, at all times have told story of heroes, prophets and gods. There are massive number of texts about Ameratsu, Thor, Hercules or Horus. Despite this abundance of “evidences”, extremely few historians, if any, would take at face value the historicity of these figures without some other [independent] and conclusive evidences. Like it or not, the [standard] of proof for a mythical figure is harsher than for a general.

Massive number? And you won’t even accept the two dozen references I gave you for Jesus as EXISTING? […shaking head…] For your information, there are extremely many historians who, for the eminently sensible reasons some of us have outlined here, do NOT deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The denialists are a small minority.

[clairobscur]

If you started reporting that you have a friend who claims that government has no legitimate authority over him, that the highest leaders of the world’s “great” religions are corrupt to the core, that he can heal the sick, raise the dead, and in fact did himself appear to you after his execution for treason — I wouldn’t need cites; I’d see it on CNN and Fox and MSNBC.

You seem to contradict yourself. If the natural reaction to such extraordinary events was equivalent (with the means of the time) to what you describe, where are the numerous reports, coming from many sources all over the place about the incredible events which were happening or had just happenned in Judea? How comes nobody apart a handful of supposed direct witness seemed to care?

quote:

It doesn’t necessarily [mean] I’m absolutely certain there never was a jewish rabbi crucified in Jerusalem nor a greek warrior killed at Troy.

Do you believe that, on the sum of the evidence, there was

a

Perhaps we have here a mix of event related to several historical figures attributed to the same mythic character. Legends told orally evolve quickly. Perhaps say…a jewish teacher called Jesus ben Sira and a zelot executed under Pilatus for whatever reason?

Jesus

Possibly Jesus. There were so many people going by this name. But the meaning of this name would fit very well an “angelos-christos”, don’t you think?

of Nazareth

Hmm…Where are the non-christian sources refering to this guy as “of Nazareth”? Not Tacitus, nor Josephus…who, then? Also, I remember having read that this “of Nazareth” could actually be a deformed “Nazorean”…interesting theory too…

who was the son of Mary

Could you point to me some non christian sources refering to this Mary?

and the brother of James,

Even a large part of the people who believe in Jesus don’t believe he was the brother of James. Ask the catholic church, for instance. And you would want me to believe it without serious evidences?

and who lived sometime near the early first century

Or before, if we assume this figure could actually have been the martyred essenian “master of justice”. Situating an older story in a more recent context (under Pilatus) happens, as long as the story isn’t written down and fixed.

and is now worshiped by somewhere around two billion of the world’s people?

I do believe in that.

Actually, I believe the christian belief is probably based on a historical character (though stories actually related to other people could have been mixed) who probably lived around the beginning of the first century, and probably called Jeshuah. I believe he was probably a sort of rabbi with heterodoxal views.

That his story was orally transmitted and deformed by his followers. That many events of his life have been enthousiastically added later, and many removed. That his teachings have been mixed with the beliefs of other messianic Jewish sects. And probably also of non-Jewish cults.

That various versions of his life and teachings have been written down dozens of years after his death, by people who never saw or heard him, and influenced each other. Giving birth to several messianic sects arguing over a lot of points, sometimes extremely important. That these sects didn’t hesitate to forge documents or attribute them to reputable figures.

That at some point, one of the schools of thought became proeminent and selected whatever agreed with its point of view in the available texts, and that this collection of texts became after various rewritings and editings what is now called the scriptures. That it later destroyed or left to rot most documents disagreeing with its teachings, and added interpolations to documents which weren’t “complete enough” for its taste.
But I’m not sure at all that any of the things I wrote above are certain. Including the actual existence of the person we’re talking about.

[Liberal]

I’m not sure about yours either, so that’s okay.

You seem to contradict yourself. If the natural reaction to such extraordinary events was equivalent (with the means of the time) to what you describe, where are the numerous reports, coming from many sources all over the place about the incredible events which were happening or had just happenned in Judea? How comes nobody apart a handful of supposed direct witness seemed to care?

There are numerous reports all over the place — from Judea to Macedonia to Rome. You just don’t trust any of them due to your own capricious prejudices. You do understand, I reckon, that the canonical texts were not the only writings. Remember that numerous for the 1st century is not the same as the media saturation of the 21st. What’s missing are the numerous official reports saying that none of it is true. You do understand, I reckon, that your denials, based on misapplication of 21st century culture to 1st century Palestine, do not constitute official reports.

Incidentally, your belief about what happened is remarkably detailed. I’m just curious about where you drew your details from.

[Abe]

My thanks to Clairobscur for his reading skills and clear approach to the situation. Since he addressed the objections levelled against me by Lib and JT, I will not argue in circles further. Libertarian, welcome to the definition of the word “myth”. Now, let’s summarize this position before it is misrepresented further by factually-lacking and often unrelated assertions:

• there is not a contemporary account of Jesus

(JT, I addressed the validity of the sources you brought up in an earlier message, including Mara Bar-Serapion, yesterday)

• Hearsay is information obtained from other people as opposed to witness testimony. Hearsay is not considered proof or good evidence, for the same reason that its cousin, anecdotal evidence, is inadmissible in science. This is not a “medieval” approach to history, quite the contrary: it means relying on stronger support than belief and hearsay. It’s quite a modern take on history and exactly the opposite of medieval.

-What information we have on Jesus appears to be entirely hearsay

-Historians today studying an event or person of the distant past can only work from indirect observation, yes; however a valid historian’s work contains references to the subject itself, eyewitnesses, and/or artifacts that support his thesis. Hearsay and belief may be studied in context, but they do not make up the bulk of evidence in history–that would not be history but mythology.

The evidence for Jesus does not consists of verified eyewitnesses, contemporary accounts, or records at all outside of germinating Christianity for several decades. Evidence from within Christianity itself is quite sketchy too, and sometimes contradictory (as in the four gospels), and also dated starting only well after the death of Jesus. It turns out the evidence for Jesus is no better than the evidence for Hercules or Zeus. Yet (I repeat) we would think it folly to hear someone assert that Hercules and Zeus existed regardless of the lack of evidence and their clearly fantastical natures.

This is not to say that Jesus must be a myth like Hercules, but that if we relax the standards by which history is studied for one case and accept that Jesus did exist in spite of the lack of historical support, should we not be entitled to do it for all similarly supported cases? (such as Hercules, whose historicity no less an authority than Herodotus addressed?).

Libertarian, your latest post:

Maybe not an empire, but what do you call the Vatican?

I’d call it something that Jesus definitely did not build or leave behind. Clairobscur was very simply and clearly referring to using archaeological evidence to back up claims of hearsay. Since the Vatican is a development that came considerably after the death of Jesus, it can hardly be suggested that the Vatican city is anything that Jesus himself accomplished. It’s not evidence of anything for this debate.

But this debate isn’t about whether Jesus walked on water or spoke to multitudes on the steps of the temple in Jerusalem.It’s about whether there existed a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

Actually, this debate is about both, unless you are willing to rule out the possibility that Jesus actually accomplished miracles, etc. Like I said, it’s possible, it just seems unlikely and each claim needs to be supported correspondingly. There’s no reason we shouldn’t look for all possible Jesuses, since what few accounts we have of him do point to a fantastical being.

To say that He never lived isn’t simply to say that all these people (and we haven’t even discussed what writings might have circulated before the destruction of Jerusalem) are telling tall tales. You’re saying that they made up a whole person and wrote stories about Him, tying Him to important events and powerful politicians — and most remarkably, that those powerful people made no official move whatsoever to dispell any such stories.

That defies credibility.

“All these people” are in fact, according to the record, a very limited quantity. They did not make up tales about Jesus out of thin air as you suggest, but recorded hearsay they came across. It’s perfectly possible for these instances of hearsay (which are themselves quite limited in number) to have their origins in one single set of fictional stories or real person.

Again, this argument of absence does not demonstrate anything except the possibility that Jesus did not exist and therefore there was nothing for the world to talk about. (JTHunder, you seem to think that there is conclusive evidence that people WERE talking about Jesus during and immediately after his life. What is this evidence?)

For your information, there are extremely many historians who, for the eminently sensible reasons some of us have outlined here, do NOT deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The denialists are a small minority.

I, and those who go about this in a more rigorous manner than you deem necessary, couldn’t care less. You are (again) restating the fallacy of the majority. These legions of historians you enjoy referring to lack reliable evidence to support their arguments, and frequently have to resort to the sort of apologies you have outlined here (and that, as demonstrated, are not exactly free of error) . Yet even authorities must support their arguments with something more concrete than hearsay–but I’ve gone over this before.

[clairobscur]

Maybe not an empire, but what do you call the Vatican?

I don’t recall the Vatican being build by this Jesus

Perhaps it makes them arguably unreliable for certain claims.

“arguably unreliable”??? Do you think there’s any other way to call them than " blatant lies" or “legends” if you don’t assume a priori that they’re are true? Would you call the story about a Osiris cut in piece and resew “arguably unreliable”?

But this debate isn’t about whether Jesus walked on water or spoke to multitudes on the steps of the temple in Jerusalem. It’s about whether there existed a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes. And the fact that the main document recounting his exixtence is filled with lies makes it very suspicious for the parts which would be otherwise believable. That’s exactly my point.

To say that He never lived isn’t simply to say that all these people (and we haven’t even discussed what writings might have circulated before the destruction of Jerusalem) are telling tall tales.

That’s exactly what I say. They’re telling tales. Tales about a guy who walk on water. Maybe there are real elements mixed in these tales. But then, maybe not.

You’re saying that they made up a whole person and wrote stories about Him

Yes. Possibly. Though perhaps you’re thinking about a dozen of guys deliberatly making up a whole story, while i’m thinking about hearsays told and retold, modified, intermixed, over a rather long period by people who sincerely believed that what they were told (orally) was true.

If you don’t think that making up a whole person is possible, I assume you believe in Osiris?

tying Him to important events and powerful politicians —

What are these important events? If you’re thinking about something like Herod ordering to kill the infants, I don’t beleive for an instant that this event ever took place. If you’re thinking about something like the census, I don’t understand why it would be more difficult to add to a story “he was born during the census” rather than “he walked on the water”. Same with mentionning politicians.

and most remarkably, that those powerful people made no official move whatsoever to dispell any such stories.

Your reasonning seems rather confused to me, here. We’re not arguing over what move these powerful people should have made, but about whether they had any reason to make any move whatsoever (no Jesus= no move necessary).

If you assume that Jesus was an actual figure and did something similar to what is recounted in the gospels, then, yes, perhaps they would have make some move. But you’re arguing against your camp, then, since I could ask you : why don’t we have any evidences that they made such moves?

But actually, even if we assume that most of the gospels content is true, I don’t think any major move was necessarily required. There was an agitator (one amongst many). The move was : let’s execute him. End of story. When christiannism became an annoyance for the empire, they made moves. Meanwhile, who cares about what a minuscule group of messianist are saying?

I believe I just understood what you meant : you’re asking me why, when christiannism became widespread, its opponents didn’t provide proofs that jesus didn’t existed. If it’s so, i already answered above : because there probably wasn’t any proof that he didn’t exist (what kind of proof could that be,anyway?), nor that he did exist by this time. And that there’s quite nothing left of the arguments of these opponents, except for some “refutatios” that christian authors handed to us. Even if they had an “official certificate of Jesus non-existence”, we wouldn’t know.

quote:

The textual evidences about most historical figures haven’t been thoroughly filtered and epurated for centuries by biased people and institutions which had an advantage in selecting only the evidences supporting their opinion.

Nonsense. Good heavens. That’s exactly what has happened with every historical figure of any significance. Washington. Jefferson (both of them). Stalin. Alexander. Siddartha. The list goes on and on.

What do you mean exactly? That anything we know about Washington has been handed to us by firm opponents of Washington who had an interest in telling us that Washington didn’t exist? Or at the contrary by firm admirators of Washington who had an interest in telling us that washington not only existed but was the greatest historical figure ever?

Your comparison makes no sense. If you really want to introduce a modern figure, a more apt comparison would be : what would we know about Stalin if we only had documents provided by the USSR minister of propaganda after 200 years of Stalinism?

Massive number? And you won’t even accept the two dozen references I gave you for Jesus as EXISTING? […shaking head…]

I did accept the references you gave me. They do exist. I disagree with you on their reliability and on the fact that they prove without doubt the existence of Jesus.

For your information, there are extremely many historians who, for the eminently sensible reasons some of us have outlined here, do NOT deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The denialists are a small minority.

I’m aware of that. But i don’t accept the opinion of the majority as a definitive proof, especially not in a society where the existence of Jesus is an article of faith for a large majority of the population, historians included. If we were talking about Zoroastre, this majority would dwindle. Actually, most historians wouldn’t be really interested in knowing if Jesus/Zoroastre actually existed or not, since it wouldn’t change a thing.

By the way, as I wrote in my previous post, I don’t say Jesus didn’t exist, but only that I’m not certain he did. I actually believe there was probably a historical character from which christianism originated. But that this character could have been, or even probably was, very different from the Jesus depicted in the gospels. And I would suspect that quite of few historians would agree with me (or more exactly that I’m agreeing with them).

[Liberal]

You are (again) restating the fallacy of the majority.

[…rolling on the floor…] This from the man who made the phrase “widely held” famous! Too delicious.

Yet even authorities must support their arguments with something more concrete than hearsay–but I’ve gone over this before.

Yes, and we all know that when you’ve posted, the rest of us can just shut off our computers because the argument is finished. Unfortunately, I’m a bit of a renegade, and I prefer to state my own opinions. Zat okay by you?

Again, this argument of absence does not demonstrate anything except the possibility that Jesus did not exist and therefore there was nothing for the world to talk about.

Again, there are dozens of documents on this side of the scale and zero — zero! — over there. The denialists themselves did not exist until centuries after Jesus lived.

There’s no reason we shouldn’t look for all possible Jesuses, since what few accounts we have of him do point to a fantastical being.

Only someone ignorant of ancient literature would call dozens of sources “few”. At any rate, I wish I knew what your position is. Are you saying that there isn’t likely one Jesus, but that there likely might be oodles of them?

Since the Vatican is a development that came considerably after the death of Jesus, it can hardly be suggested that the Vatican city is anything that Jesus himself accomplished. It’s not evidence of anything for this debate.

Sure it is. It’s evidence aplenty. It’s evidence of centuries of meticulous thought given to the very matter under discussion. The come-lately denialists and their arguments are irrelevant. They are more than a thousand years removed from sources that they complain are a single generation removed.

What empire did Siddhartha build? If future man uses your standards, they will deny the existence of Martin Luther King, Jr., Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and worst of all, Willard Scott. Lest you protest that video tapes of those people will be available, every citizen of the 30th century knows that those things are easy to fake with moxypoogers and that all the videos were forged by their rabbid fans. Besides, there are only a few hundred videos all put together, and in the 30th century there are billions of holocameras everywhere recording every moment of everyone’s life, so there should be endless footage of King picking his nose, Madalyn stabbing hands, and Scott taking a dump.

What information we have on Jesus appears to be entirely hearsay

You mean like the information we have on Abraham Lincoln?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**Please note the words “during or immediatly after his lifetime”. There are no elements dating back to this time. **

So noted, and I clearly missed that clause. However, the point remains. Historians do NOT require that a text be dated to within, or immediately after, a person’s lifetime in order to be considered reliable – especially when it comes to documents written before the advent of modern printing. Such objections may sound reasonable to laymen, but professional historians know better.

[Liberal]

The same holds true, JT, for one of the many exceptions to hearsay inadmissibility. Ancient documents are considered admissible so long as their authenticity can be expertly shown.

I don’t recall the Vatican being [built] by this Jesus

Oh, okay. So you meant that historical people had to build things. Like the way that Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t. Or like the way that Tutankhamen didn’t. Or Einstein. Or Confucious. Or my mother.

Do you think there’s any other way to call them than " blatant lies" or “legends” if you don’t assume a priori that they’re are true?

Certainly. In fact, I had, like you, assumed a priori that they weren’t. But if Jesus is indeed God, then there is nothing particularly spectacular about anything that He is said to have done.

Yes. And the fact that the main document recounting his [existence] is filled with lies makes it very suspicious for the parts which would be otherwise believable. That’s exactly my point.

Then your point is weak. You have no knowledge, but only faith, that there are any lies. When you read Church records — records filled with innuendo and partisan commentary — of the trials of Copernicus and Galileo, do you assume that those two men did not exist?

That’s exactly what I say. They’re telling tales. Tales about a guy who [walks? walked?] on water. Maybe there are real elements mixed in these tales. But then, maybe not.

And maybe it’s all true. I don’t know why you should be allowed to cherry pick that which suits your preconceived conclusion, particularly when you say that others must not do the same.

If you don’t think that making up a whole person is possible, I assume you believe in Osiris?

Osiris was said to be the son of Nut and Geb, brother of Nephthys and Seth, and husband and brother of Isis. Where in that is a human being? Moreover, Osiris’ character was developed over the course of many Egyptian dynasties, and not within just a few years. In fact, no connective narrative about Osiris was even written until Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. Only the most cursory and careless examiner would compare Jesus to Osiris.

What are these important events?

The reign of Tiberius Caesar. The Passover in Jerusalem. The destruction of the Temple. Caiaphas presiding over the Sanhedrin. Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, arriving in Jerusalem. Herod Antipas building Tiberius and being called a fox (an unclean animal) by Jesus. The meeting of the Jerusalem Council. The beheading of John the Baptist. The usage of the Aramaean language by the Hebrews in Palestine. The meeting between Herod and the Magi. The cleansing of the Temple (an act no doubt considered outrageous by the Pharisees and Sadducees.) Jesus dressing down the Ruling Council in front of hundreds of stunned onlookers (“Hypocrites! Vipers!”). The meeting between Jesus and Pilate. And, of course, the Resurrection, written denial of which did not exist for many centuries.

Your reasonning seems rather confused to me, here. We’re not arguing over what move these powerful people should have made, but about whether they had any reason to make any move whatsoever (no Jesus= no move necessary).

Not so. No Jesus = all the more reason to make a move. What do you imagine would be the reaction of politicians (both in government and in religion) if your story about your friend was circulating the Internet. “Not so!” they would say. “We investigated and can find no clue that this man rose from the dead. In fact, here are his remains.”

I did accept the references you gave me. They do exist. I disagree with you on their reliability and on the fact that they prove without doubt the existence of Jesus.

Fair enough. But it is remarkable that such doubt is so modern. Where are the doubters from the period?

By the way, as I wrote in my previous post, I don’t say Jesus didn’t exist, but only that I’m not certain he did. I actually believe there was probably a historical character from which [Christendom] originated. But that this character could have been, or even probably was, very different from the Jesus depicted in the gospels.

Yes, you’ve already enumerated in remarkable detail the circumstances in which you believe He existed. And I’m still curious as to where you draw them from.

[Abe]

Lib, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a series of arguments so dumbed down. You still haven’t properly addressed most of the points that have been made, but I’m glad to see your snippy little “answers” made you feel better about the situation. Your bile and scorn is no substitute for arguments, you realize.

Quite the opposite.

[clairobscur]

Libertarian, I’m going to give up arguing with you because I do not intend to write the same things over and over again. Not only you pick only the part of my arguments which happen to suit you (while, I believe, I tried to answer to everything you said), but you consistently don’t adress my points or misrepresent my arguments.
For instance :

-I write that for many historical figures, archeology can support written records. You’re transforming this argument in "archeological proofs are required " (after having pointed at an “evidence” build centuries after the life of Christ…when did I said that the catholic church never existed?). That’s a straw man argument.
-Your telling me that not believing in miracles is a proof of my lack of objectivity. Well…if one must assume that any myth is true to be deemed objective, I guess that a lot of history textbooks must be rewritten ASAP. Given you’ve been posting on this board for some time, I guess you should know better that stating that the default position in front of an extraordinary statement is to believe it’s true (or even stating that believing it or not are logical equivalent)
-You give me a list of events recounted in the gospels as some sort of evidence that they must be true. In what way these events are dependant on the existence of a historical Jesus? You mean that that Caesar wouldn’t have reigned or Caiphas wouldn’t have presided the Sanhedrim if Jesus didn’t exist? That the Jews woiuldn’t have celebrated the passover? That the temple wouldn’t have been destroyed?
-I adressed your arguments about biased testimonies and the lack of ancient texts stating that Jesus didn’t exist , but you’re restate them over and over again without adressing my counter arguments. I would add that the way you’re answering my posts are an excellent example of the reasons why i don’t trust the christian “refutatios” to be an objective representation of ancient arguments against christianism.
As for your question about how I formed my opinion on this topic:
I happen to have an extraordinary skill called “litteracy”, to answer shortly.

[clairobscur]

And to answer in a more lenghty way after having checked my bookshelf for reviews and books related to this topic, here are the titles I found (I’m translating them) :

-Enquiries on the origins of christiannism
-The Jesus mystery
-Truths and legends of the bible
-The resistance to christianism : the heresies from the origins to the XVIII° century
-The invention of Jesus
-The controversies of christianism
-The word which became gospel
-Jesus viewed by history
-Birth of God : the bible and the historian
And of course : the Gospels.