spin

Umm, that's not exactly true.

No. I believe that silly questions get the sort of answer they deserve.

I was dealing with another silly statement. You know, "cartloads" -> "cart driver". Get the connection? Fake documents don't make other documents of unknown quality fake.

Ultimately a non sequitur.

We know that christian works haven't made it to this day. For some of them we have fragments in citations, but for some others we just have titles and beyond that who knows?

We do know that because christians didn't fulfill their "religious duties" in the Roman empire, they were targeted as troublesome, leading to harsh treatment. I don't think they invented burning books.



Books were unpopular even during the Seleucid persecution of the Jews. It's not strange that they might be targets, targets for Roman administrators, targets for christians who thought other christian texts were not orthodox.

And so doesn't actually say anything.

I don't usually talk much about a historical Jesus, because I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support his historicity. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, just that his possible existence cannot be demonstrated. There are millions of people who lived lives in the past which cannot be demonstrated, so the mere fact that I cannot demonstrate that Jesus lived doesn't mean that he didn't (or that he did).

The vast majority of pundits don't know too much about evidence.

This question implies an assumption which is a non sequitur...

I don't really know what you are talking about, but I have urged people to withhold taking positions when there is a lack of evidence.

If it is true that Jesus did not exist, then provide the primary source indicating that he did exist.

You still haven't got it yet. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus (existed or) did not exist, so you have to play the game of trying to shift the burden for your conclusion. It doesn't matter to me whether Jesus existed or not. There is insufficient evidence to decide and the issue doesn't affect my life, so I'm not forced to guess. Intelligent decisions are made on the basis of evidence and you seem to have a lot of difficulty identifying useful data to use as evidence for your claims.


spin

aa5874

Well, who can supply the primary evidence for the existence of Achilles or Unicorns?

Achilles is a myth based on Homer's description of Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess.

People claim Jesus existed based on the NT and church writers, whether the NT and church writings are primary, or secondary are irrelevent, those are the sources that Jesus believers have presented to make their case.

The Jesus of the NT and church writers is fundamentally fiction, that Jesus did not exist or could not exist as described.

Now, some people think there may have been some other Jesus but they have no source or information to support their thoughts, except their imagination.

And people can think or imagine whatever they like, but Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, is fiction, all the evidence or written statements can be found in the NT and the church writings.

patcleaver

We know what pagan literature we have.
We have estimates of the size of the library of Alexandria.

patcleaver

10% to 50% of the Judeans were literate.

Many of them must have corresponded with Jewish relatives and business associates elsewhere in the Empire.

Many of them must have kept journals.

According to the gospels 10,000 people witnessed the miracles of Jesus.

If the Gospels were true, than there should have been hundreds or even thousands of accounts of his miracles in journals and letters.

The fact that we do not have a single letter or journal that mentions Jesus is a startling silence that indicates that Jesus never existed.

GakuseiDon

How many journals and letters do we have from that time and place? AFAIK, little to none. Isn't that the eternal problem with that kind of argument?

If you could show that we should expect to find references to the Gospel accounts in journals and letters from that time (which is what I believe you are saying), then at best it would show that the Gospel Jesus didn't exist. But that would be interesting in itself.

Jeffrey Gibson

Which is how much?

We do? What are these estimates, and what is the source of them?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=patcleaver;5679993]What is the source of/your authority for this claim?


If you are speaking of the feeding of the multitudes, only 12 people witnessed the "miracle". The 9000 (not 10000) who were fed by Jesus only experienced the consequences of what, according to the Gospels, only the disciples knew was a miraculous event. There's nothing in the gospel accounts that says those who were fed saw Jesus multiply the loaves and fishes or, more importantly, recognized anything miraculous in their being fed. (note the absence in the stories of the feedings of any element of wonder and astonishment on the part of those who benefited from Jesus' action by Jesus, an element which is typical in miracle stories where the miracle is presented as having been witnessed).

If your estimates about Judean literacy and your claims about Jews being letter writers and journal keepers are correct, then we should have lots of accounts of other stunning events that we know from Josephus were witnessed by even more people than those who reputedly benifitted from the "loaves event" (e.g, the massive response to the call of John the Immerser, the crucifixions of Judas' and Saddok's followers by Varus, the incident of the Roman standards in the temple and its aftermat, the riot in the temple at the accession of Archelaus, the attempt by Caligula to place his statue in the temple, the defeat of Cestius Galus, the cruelties of Herod and Pilate, internecine strife of the Zealots after the revolt began, Titus's siege and his destruction of the Temple, the siege of Massada, etc.). But we don't. Why is that that?

Does the fact that Roman historians and eyewitnesses of the Bar Kochba revolt don't mention Simeon mean that Simeon didn't exist?

Jeffrey

aa5874

There are many, many written texts, possibly hundreds, claiming Jesus was the son of the Gods of the Jews, the offspring of the Holy Ghost who was transfigured, resurrected, and ascended.

We have 27 books in the NT, and all the writings of the church, including those of heretics and non-canonized authors. There is more than enough information to deduce that Jesus of the NT is fiction.

Only Jesus believers , whether heretics or orthodox, could have written about Jesus of the NT. This Jesus, as described, was some kind of Holy Ghost- conceived or supernatural entity, who could ascend through clouds.

Now, who else do you expect would have written about the conception, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

Only Jesus believers would write such absurd stories and expect people to believe them, even up to today.

There are more than enough information about Jesus and it is fiction.

spin

Not when we have letters that were signed by Simeon.




spin

aa5874

So, was the name Simeon bar Kokhba made out of thin air? Did people just guess that Simeon existed around and up to 135 CE?

Was Bar Kokhba described as obvious fiction, like Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, or the offspring of the Holy Ghost, tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, used spit to make people see, walked on water, raised dead people, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds?

When it was claimed Simeon was killed, did he resurrect and ascend? What is the report?

When it was claimed Jesus was killled, did he resurrect and ascend through the clouds? What is the report?

The resurrection of Jesus and his ascension through the clouds was witnessed by his disciples.

Are there not coins depicting the revolt of Simeon Bar Kokhba?

Did not Cassius Dio write about the revolt?

There is information about Simeon Bar Kokchba that appears to be credible, the information about Jesus appears to be implausible, and fictitous.

It is reasonable to consider Jesus as fiction until the apologetics can provide credible information to contradict all the obvious fiction about Jesus produced by the authors of the NT and the church writers.