Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana: To wit: one of the reasons I doubt the historicity of Jesus is that there is no written record of him dating from the time he actually walked on the earth. Considering the many things he was said to have done (before multitudes), there should be at least one reference to him dating from that period--with any luck, a write-up from a non-believer who happened to witness one of his many miracles (which, we might expect would be written off as sleight of hand or the Devil's work). I find it highly suspect that not one of the multitudes wrote down anything about him and that there are no Roman records of him

Diana,

I snipped the rest of your post because this section here is the entire crux of your argument. Since you are only willing to believe in the existence of people whose lives were mentioned in the writings of eyewitnesses (or others alive at the time), I'm afraid no amount of other evidence will convince you. I just hope you're aware that this isn't the way 99% of historians operate. If we used your criterion, then we'd have to throw out huge chunks of history taught in our universities. Which Roman emperors or other popular figures never existed? And before you say something like “We have coins containing the names of the emperors.”, let me remind you that we also have coins with gargoyles on them. This doesn’t mean that gargoyles exist and, using your logic, it shouldn’t mean the emperors or other figures existed, either.

I can't understand the difficulty in separating the mere existence of Jesus from his alleged divinity. You seem to have no problem doing the same thing with Roman emperors. I really don't understand the difference. Why do you think the overwhelming majority of Jewish (non-Christian Jews) scholars believe in the existence of Jesus? I'm simply not going to convince you. This is because I’m guilty of the charge you levied against me when you said:

”To argue for his historicity sans deity is pointless--particularly when we know you believe he is the Son of God.”

Apparently, people who believe Jesus is the Son of God are not interested in the facts. In other words, this entire discussion is “pointless” because I’m not also arguing for divinity. My only other suggestion to you is that you read the writings of Jewish scholars who’ve written on this issue. I’m not talking about messianic Jews, but mainstream non-Christian Jews. Surely they’re far more reliable than the biased Christians. Oh wait, maybe we can’t trust them because they believe in a god. Yeah, they’re definitely not trustworthy if they believe in a god. Am I making sense???

The point I’ve tried to emphasize throughout this entire discussion is that the early opponents of Christianity never doubted the existence of Jesus. His existence is acknowledged by all parties during the first 150 years after he supposedly lived. You haven’t given me any reasons for why you’re in a better position now (2000 years later) to claim he never existed than they were when they lived much closer to the events. I have evidence from over 70 different writings (Christian, Jewish, Roman, etc) written within 150 years of his alleged death which claim he existed. You have zero claims from the same era supporting your position. I have the uneasy suspicion that if there was a writing discovered from the first or second century which claimed Jesus never existed it would be heralded as the long awaited proof that Jesus mythers had been wanting. Funny how one document would so easily sway people while 70 documents have no effect. I’ll leave it to the individual to justify to themselves the logic of such thinking.

Thanks again for the great discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp,

We have God on our coins to this day. Heck, we even go so far as to say that we trust in Him! I guess that means he exists.

This history thing is pretty simple.

Lance

This comment by Diana is right at the heart of the matter:

"I'm not so sure about this. My point was that the religiously-motivated tend to be materially-motivated, as well. If there's money (or power) to be had if "evidence" is produced in support of a certain theology (and there was/is, in the case of Christianity), those followers who write the scriptures may be written off as biased witnesses. If a person has an ulterior motive that is being served by convincing others of something, you're justified in doubting the veracity of their statements. The church has a history of gaining power and money by such manipulations. This is the reason I want testimony from someone who lived at the time but wasn't trying to convert people (at the very least). I want unbiased support."

What I think has been lost in this whole argument is this. We can not prove Jesus is a myth, yet neither can the Christian prove with any great level of reliability that he wasn't. The evidence just isn't there, one way or another.

Plus you have to factor in what went on in early Christendom, what some would say still goes on today. And that is massive spin, message control, and propagandization that'd make Goebbels envious. Or heck, even Michaelvilli himself.

This taints much of what can be offered for evidence by the Christian. Consider the gospels...the fact that we have 10 zillion copies of the darn thing doesn't mean squat if the original was corrupt. And wonder of wonders, we do not have the original document, we don't even know for a fact who wrote it, and can't acertain for any level of reliability whether or not we're dealing with one source, three sources, or however many.

Consider also we know that some early histories were modified by Christians. This is definitely true of part of Josephus, does it make it true of the other? We don't know.

So here we have an organization with a track record of extreme willingness to do ANYTHING and I do mean ANYTHING to sell their snake oil, we have no physical evidence, and they say "trust us, just believe".

Did a real man Jesus exist? Actually I think it likely. Did the myth portraited in the gospels happen? Not on your life, its a rehash of half a dozen of the early Med religions that has been recast and careful spun for ages.

Tim,

It isn't about having the last word. I'm just failing to explain my thoughts to you, is all. And I expect I'll continue to fail, as I can't think of another way to explain.

I don't see the Caesars as legitimate comparisons because, to the best of my knowledge, they weren't said to have performed miracles before multitudes. They may be a good analogy, in your mind, due to claims of deity, but as far as I'm concerned, the analogy fails here. This is why I reject the Caesar analogy altogether (which is what I've done throughout this thread).

I don't reject the idea that someone lived because there are no extant writings FROM HIS TIME across the board. I argue the Jesus, as the Christ, is a special case. Priests are motivated to fudge records in the interest of furthering their religions (which is why I brought money/power into it) and working miracles before multitudes is bound to get you talked about...but it doesn't seem to have had this effect in the case of Jesus. But we have nothing from that time--just stuff long after the fact that reflects what Christians said they believed.

Let the record reflect that this is your argument against yourself, that I had nothing to do with this, for or against.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, as this is not what I said or meant. I'm sorry you took it that way.

My point was that I don't understand why you'd argue Jesus' historicity while ignoring claims of deity because you believe those claims. I just don't understand what purpose is served by this discussion for you, other than to head off any "why aren't there eyewitness accounts of any of those miracles" comments from the opposition.

I'm trying to figure out why it would matter to you whether Jesus existed if you wished to postulate that he WASN'T a god.

I'm sorry you took offense to my acknowledgement that you believe. I didn't mean to imply that your belief makes you uninterested in facts. I meant no disrespect to you whatsoever.

Once again, Tim, you seem to be putting words into my mouth. I didn't say this. I don't understand your defensiveness. The Jews, it would stand to reason, would be biased about their own beliefs. As you well know, those who believe any one religion tend to be quite skeptical of all others. I will accept what Jews have to say about Jesus, provided you can give me reason to believe that their berating of him wasn't based on their urge to vilify the religious beliefs of others, or simply repeating hearsay.

Just as the early Christians didn't doubt the existence of Tammuz, I suspect.

It sounds like you want me to prove non-existence? How silly is that?

And I suspect it would be heralded as a hoax with equal vehemence from the other side of the fence. Such a document would prove nothing.

From the 70-odd documents you claim as support, how many were written as records of others' religious beliefs? Think of the many documents we have now that are based upon the beliefs of our fathers and so on back down the line that are equally insistent (if not more so) that Jesus lived?

I don't know much about research, really, but I do know to check my sources. It's of paramount importance where the writer got his information. However, in the case of Jesus and the secular sources, we simply don't know (except where forgery and interpolation have been acknowledged).

However, it appears that I can't explain my position in such a way that you understand it. No...I'm not calling you hard-headed or anything. I've had this trouble before. I've tried to express my viewpoint but have failed.

I do appreciate your being a gentleman about it although we disagree. Let's do it again sometime (i.e., disagree ).

diana

Bede

Diana,

I'm going to jump in here as I think you are making serious mistakes. Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

You seem to claim that, as Jesus's followers thought he was a miracle worker and no one else really seemed to care enough to mention this, Jesus did not exist. The Caesars were reputed to perform miracles and Josephus claims Vespasian did so. I doubt you will now claim that Vespasian did not exist even though he was also claimed to be a diety.

But you are making a huge error by assuming that a 'miracle worker' who attracted large crowds would warrant any attention from the upper class Roman historians whose works we have. In the US you have dozens of faith healers who attract enormous crowds. In India there are thousands of magicians making a living with wonderous works. To Roman historians Jesus was just another one of these people - until there were enough Christians, Jesus just DID NOT MATTER to the Romans. Just as no serious historian of the US will mention cult leaders who just do faith healing in front of tabloid readers, so no Roman historian mentioned Jesus. What possible reason could they have for doing so?

Your suggestion that we Christians are not interested in history (and you are suggesting this when you ask why Polycarp cares about the 'historical facts' about Jesus) is also rather wrong headed. Rather like your suggestion that there was money and power in being a Christian at the time the NT was being written. There wasn't.

Basically, saying Jesus was a myth is the non-Christian equivalent of young earth creationism. It has about the same level of support in universities, requires the same level of special pleading and is just as wrong. I only get defensive about this because, like Darwinists fighting creationism, I despair of public ignorance and stupidity.

Given that all your reasons for not believing Jesus existed are invalid, why not actually accept the overwealming evidence and find something more useful to argue about?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

In the early centuries of Christianity, the existence of pagan deities was generally accepted, though those deities were viewed as evil demons.

And on the pagan side, serious skepticism was not very common; to a typical pagan, the Gospel accounts might seem like accounts of the career of yet another sorcerer. The same is true of the Jewish side; the Talmud states that he had been some wicked sorcerer.

Those who nowadays question his existence base their questioning on a level of analysis that was not common in the Roman Empire, so it's not surprising that considering him a myth was not common.

This just seems to be more of the same. You seem to be arguing that because there were extraordinary claims made about Jesus, along with many quite ordinary claims, then he must not have existed.

Does that mean Benny Hinn doesn't exist?

I'm arguing no such thing, Layman. Simply see what Earl Doherty argues in http://www.jesuspuzzle.com

Basically, he argues that Paul had only known JC as a sort-of god without a human history, and that the Gospel writers ended up inventing a human history for him.

And neither pagan nor Jewish critics had done the sort of analysis that ED had done; thus, they came to believe that the Gospels were describing a real person -- a sorcerer.

The reason other scholars have not done the analysis that ED has done is because his ideas are ridiculous and properly rejected. When liberal scholars such as Crossan won't even give his work the time of day, it has to be pretty far out there.

Rejected by whom? For all the criticisms of arguments for silence I see around here, this sure is a big one. I would love nothing more than to learn exactly why liberal scholars 'reject' Doherty and find his work 'ridiculous'. The only information from Crossan on Doherty I've ever come across was his response to my question at a talk he give recently. I asked him his opinion on the work of Wells, Doherty, and others who claim that Jesus was a myth, and his response was basically 'I can't show the Jesus was not a myth'. Maybe I misheard him, or misunderstood him, but that's the only I thing I have to go on, and the way he reworded my question for the audience gave me the impression he's never read Doherty. Of course this wouldn't be surprising. And whether or not he has read Wells and rejected his work, does not imply that anyone who ever concludes that Jesus was mythical is likewise to be rejected without any consideration.

It may very well be the case that most liberal scholars will disagree with Doherty and have good reasons to do so, but until they do, I don't think it is fair to suggest that they all find his work ridiculous and that their silence on Doherty suggests anything except they haven't been convinced by anyone that it is worth the time to read his book.

Of course your claim could easily be supported by magazine articles or other publications which quote any of these liberal scholars and indicate that they are aware of Doherty and reject his work as ridiculous.

Until then, those of us stupid and uneducated enough to find Doherty persuasive will likely wish to wait for the opinions of the experts.

Or, we could be shown exactly where Doherty goes wrong. That of course will be Nomad's goal and I'm getting impatient to get things going. (Doherty indicated that he would probably start figuring out how to post and write his first post this weekend.)