Right, and I agree. My reply that you quoted was defending my statement: “BUT… this work does invalidate the claims made by Christians, because if those stories in the Gospels were true, then you would expect to find something written about him contemporaneously.”
The Jesus-never-existed position doesn’t depend on anyone lying. The only accounts we have are from people who lived long enough after the supposed events, that they could all be true believers in this legend that that was circulating in their peer group. And the legend possibly could have arisen without being based on an actual person.
My own thought is that the stories probably were based on a real failed apocalyptic prophet, whose followers told stories that grew over time. What we know is that the stories grew over time, what we don’t know is what the true core actually consisted of.
But it really doesn’t matter, except for idle curiosity. It’s clear that the stories were added on over the years, and they are at a minimum, greatly embellished. So what if there was or wasn’t a Yeshua that it all was based on?
You’re making the same error as the author. The person you describe is not a historical figure. The person you are describing is a legendary figure (indeed, a mythological figure). That is not in dispute.
The question is whether these stories accreted to a real individual, a Jew from Palestine who walked the earth in the early first century AD: the historical Jesus. The existence of a religious figure called Jesus who made extraordinary claims doesn’t make those claims true.
Think of a modern analogy. Does George Bush exist? Does Barack Obama? Good. We agree. Now, are all of their claims factual because they exists? Of course not. Not even close.
Same with Jesus. The only difference is, our evidence for Jesus is less direct, and our evidence for his claims is less direct. But you must separate the PERSON from the CLAIMS about the person. Not the same.
Based on the evidence, I think Jesus existed. I dispute that Jesus ever caused the dead to become not dead (himself or anyone else), because I’ve read similar claims from other ancient authors. I don’t really care whether they were sleight of hand, misunderstandings, misreportings, or made up from whole cloth: it’s an entirely separate question from whether the historical Jesus ever existed. Why is this notion so difficult for you and for Paulkovich?
Except Paul. Paul knew people that had known Jesus. I agree that’s not the kind of evidence that would convict a guy in criminal court, but I think it more likely than not, if we accept the historicity of Saul/Paul, and that he talked to people who had actually known that Jeshua guy, that the Jeshua guy actually lived.
And the whole Lazarus thing - first, it’s only in John, which is the least dependable of the gospels (written the latest, and most unlike the other three, therefore probably has the most Paul Bunyan stories). Second, lots of miracle workers probably really pulled that off back then. We still have people ‘rise from the dead’ today (story 2) (story 3). It probably happened more often before funeral workers drained blood as part of the enbalming process.
If you want to dispute that Jesus existed, do you also dispute that all the other end-of-days Jewish preachers in first century Judea existed? Or just that one guy? And if it’s just that one guy, why?
You are correct; I was not aware that the Babylonian diaries had been definitively translated to include unambiguous references to Alexander.
That is a footnote, however, because the larger point stands: the surviving Babylonian astronomical diaries were not fully translated and published until the 1990s. Did anybody in the decades prior to that doubt the existence of Alexander the Great?
[sagan]
There is a fire-breathing dragon the size of a largish elephant living in my kitchen. It spits fire once every fifteen minutes and never leaves. I can’t show you a picture of it because it is invisible. I can walk freely around the kitchen despite its presence because it is intangible. It doesn’t fall through the floor despite its intangibility because it has the power of levitation. Its fire has not burned the apartment building down because it is cold fire, and as intangible as the dragon itself. In short there is no evidence of this invisible intangible levitating cold-fire-breathing dragon, but I expect you to believe me anyway.
[/sagan]
I happen to think there are good reasons to doubt Jesus’s existence but Paulkovitch’s article doesn’t give any of those reasons. To be sure–there are some writers contemporary to Jesus who, from the writings we do have, we can be mildly surprised they don’t mention him. But there’s no strong case to be made along those lines.
Bob told me his grandpa shot five-hundred Nazi’s in WWII. Sounds like balls to me - I don’t think he even had a grandpa.
I can’t see why that follows. I don’t know whether the early 1900s conman George Parker actually sold the Brooklyn Bridge. But based on secondhand accounts, I’m comfortable saying he existed. I concede that the evidence of Jesus’ existence (or any ancient’s existence) isn’t as strong, but I’m highly dubious about the contention that Paul would successfully made up a Messiah out of whole cloth and claim that he was crucified a couple of decades ago. (Incidentally, Jesus mythicists typically claim that Paul didn’t in fact believe that, but that is tangential to the OP’s discussion topic.)
The claim in the review is an absurdity.
I have no idea whether a historical Jesus existed or not - but I have no reason to doubt that the myth was based on a real person.
The notion that lack of contemporary mention is proof of his non-existence is, however, easily shown to be mistaken - we have a similar tiny amount of proof of the existence of Pontius Pilate, who was a much more significant person in the Roman world than Jesus in their own lifetimes.
Just as with Jesus, the only mentions of Pilate are in brief mentions in the works of such authors as Tacitus and Josephus.
… until 1961, when an actual inscription with his name and title on it was found.
The point ought to be clear: if a high Roman official can leave such a lack of evidence behind during his own lifetime, such that a single inscription found fifty years ago is the only actual proof he ever existed, it is not surprising that a religious rabble-rouser and executed criminal from exactly the same time and place leaves such a small evidentiary “footprint”.
I dunno much about the time period, but it seems that all through history there were scads of people watching the skies very closely. Far more than would have known about … Bethlehem, for example.
I gotta assume there aren’t mass recordings of a “Jesus star” – some star popped up and hung out over the middle east, or that would be all the rage.
I suppose, though. that the lack of observations refutes just the one miracle, and a pre-birth one at that. Perhaps Jesus wasn’t really trying yet. 
As Chronos pointed out in post 32, though, my assumption doesn’t actually hold up.
There are no contemporary mention of Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Muhammad and a lot of other religious figures. A lot of other important non-religious figures also lack contemporary mention, such as Pythagoras. Also: “combed 126 texts written during or shortly after the time Jesus” – like other scholars hadn’t done this a thousand times before.
I’m pretty sure that Muhammad’s book is pretty solid contemporary evidence of his existence. Again, you may doubt what the author says about himself, and about his religion, but that’s a separate matter.
Muhammad:
[QUOTE=some guy writing in 637 CE]
… and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., Ḥimṣ)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth […] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] […] and we saw everywhe[re…] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]… cattle […] […] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them […] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus […] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha […] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand […]
[/quote]
emphasis added, as the phrase ‘and we saw’ is a big hairy deal.
He wrote, therefore he was.
We know Muhammad existed because we have his book. On the other hand, historians think that Abraham and Moses were fictional.
So where does that leave your point?
You mean the Koran? The same way the New Testament is evidence of Jesus’ existence? Anyway, it wasn’t his book. Allegedly he was illiterate, the book was only written some decades after his supposed death. Perhaps based on some notes which had existed while he was supposedly alive. Who knows.
There’s a Wiki article on the subject: Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia
Eh, the book was written by some other guy of the same name, just like Homer.
He didn’t write therefore he was not.