Lance

Layman: God (or the pretty pink unicorn) save us all from another damn "persecuted" Christian complex... I realize this affirms you guy's faith that you're a persecuted blah blah blah, but its rather sickening.

There's two different issues in your little rant and pity party.

First...sliding scale. Absolutely. When one claims a miracle happens and I don't care who, then more proof is certainly required than an assasination of an Emperor. If you didn't get it, and you apparently didn't, I do somewhat agree with you that Jesus the "man" likely existed. I can't prove that he did or didn't. Since there is some level of story that he did...I'd probably say "yes" until proven different. (And history just like science changes.) But to try and use the same level of proof to slide in that Jesus was a miracle worker, rose from the dead, and is the son of God...that's about as slimey a debating trick as you accuse me of. Damn straight this requires more evidence...particularly when most of it comes from people whose honesty and integrity are quite open to question. It isn't an athiest on record as saying its permissable to "lie" to advance the faith, its an early church father! So why in the world should ANYONE with a brain trust you?

Secondly, stopping Christianity. Again, here we go with the "persecute me, persecute me" complex so damn many Christians seem to have. They have their cult on our money, in our schools, in our pledge, steal from us routinely via tax breaks...and they are persecuted????? Damn, I'd LOVE to be persecuted like that.

The actual question of "should it be stopped" is literally a whole 'nother thread.

Talk about complexes, Lance, yowza!

How many times are Nomad and I going to have to say it: We are only discussing the ordinary claims about Jesus in this thread. The only reason I can think of that you have missed this point is because you find it easier to argue against a strawman that has repeatedly been disavowed.

And talk about your desperate ad hominems. Some unnamed "church father" supposedly said it was okay to lie to advance the faith so I'm not to be trusted? Please explain that one. And if you want some atheists saying its okay to lie to advance their agenda, I can give you handful off the top of my head: Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

I never claimed that Christians were persecuted. My point was that you admitted something I had suspected. Your dismissal of evidence supporting even the ordinary events in Jesus' life is based on your desire to stop Christianity, not on an objective application of historical standards. You said it, not me.

But as I said, I appreciate your clarification.

I'll try to be more to the point than in my previous post, made at a time I should have been sleeping...

You cannot historically separate the 'miracle-Jesus' from the 'ordinary-bloke-Jesus' because there are no sources of the 'ordinary' Jesus separate and independent from the 'divine' Jesus. The 'divine' sources are suspect because they have an obvious agenda. A suspect source is a suspect source, unless you have an independent corroboration of which parts are trustworthy and which parts are not. No such thing exists in the case of Jesus.

This doesn't prove he didn't exist. But without independent, 'secular' sources, the case that he didn't exist cannot be dismissed as flippantly as you guys think.

Did Hercules exist as a man (do not consider his demi-God attributes)?

fG

All history is an illusion.

The history of Gods doubly so.

(Apologies to Douglas Adams)

Bede

One thing that this thread has made abundantly clear is that none of the sceptics (bookman excepted) have ever read any ancient history. Let's get some things clear. In ancient history:

There are no unbiased sources;
There are no sources where we are 100% certain they have not been tampered with;
There are no sources without errors and mistakes;
There are hardly any sources that include nothing mythological;
There are very few events or people with truly independent attestation;

Nomad's point is simply that you are employing a double standard about Jesus compared to everyone else and he is absolutely right. And for those of you who say you don't care about history, just get off this thread and go talk about hairdressing or whatever does interest you. There is a huge body of scholarship on the historical Jesus and many of us are interested in it and discussing it.

The claim that Jesus may not exist because without Christianity he wouldn't matter is a logical fallacy. That means there is no way Jesus's existance could be proved because only Christians cared and there evidence is deemed invalid. Totally circular.

And how is it so many people here are physically INCAPABLE of not attacking the strawman that we are discussing miracles. We are not. That someone was an alleged miracle worker in ancient times (or in modern India) is not an extraordinary claim. It is unbelievablely commonplace as the ancient world, like modern India, was crawling with alleged miracle workers.

No wonder Nomad losses his cool from time to time. Under the circumstances I find his control admirable.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Bede,

I am not 100% sure that Caesar has existed.
I am not 100% sure that Jesus has existed.

Happy now?

fG

Lance

Layman: I don't know how many times I've said I'd considered a "man" Jesus as a possibility. Add one more, whatever the number.

If we're just talking secular now, then there are only about 5 sources that potentially indicate his existance.

We can discard the entire set of religious tracts as they have an agenda, period. Discard in terms of factual information, but maybe not discard in the terms that it counts for a "hey, he likely existed".

You have the following:

Seutonious (sp?): indirect and later, a possibile indication of existance; integrity level unknown.

Tacitus: indirect and later, definitely confirms existance of a Christ-cult, does not necessarily confirm existance of Christ; integrity level unknown.

Josephus: possibly a direct reference, also closer in time than others. However integrity level at some point is definitely compromised.

Pliny: indirect and later; integrity level unknown.

In a short summary, these 5 sources will tell you nothing other than that he possible existed...which I'm quite willing to concede. Outside of that, the only thing we have with details are the cult documents themselves, and yes they can not be trusted to paint an honest picture.

Lets put it this way, would you take the church of Sciencetology's word for things? Somehow I doubt it. Our viewpoint is the same as yours in that respect.

Lastly, we're not "dismissing" evidence of Jesus' existance. We're saying that of sources that can be held to some level of integrity, at best we can determine is that he was a cult leader of some kind that had some followers that eventually wound up in Rome and ultimately subverted the Roman religion.

What we are dismissing and deriding is the extraordinary claims the Christians and gospelers make. Until you can back them up with extraordinary proof, they will be dismissed.

I also see if I can find documentation on that early church father. I think it might even be here on Infidels and I think it was Euseibus.

Bede: I see you're fantasizing again. I actually hold a minor degree in history, mostly in Greek and Roman...so yeah, I've read more than my fair share of it.

I do agree with you in that every writer has some level of bias, some blinders in which what they write is filtered. This is certainly true of ancient documents as well as contemporary. (Like Hal Lindsey's crap...or better yet, the "Left Behind" series.) And it is done regardless of the genre, be it history, fiction, or humor.

Of course there are separate and independent sources for the existence of Jesus fG, and they are much closer to the events than are the ones we have for Julius Caesar's assassination (excepting Cicero, of course, and we reject him since we already know he is a liar). Further, the Gospel accounts have not proven to be fraudulent, nor are the authors thought to be liars. They believed what they wrote was true. Again, we have evidence that with Cicero this is not the case at all. The man lied, and did so to further his own schemes, and we have solid historical proof that he lied.

None of that exists for the Gospels, nor for any of the other authors of the NT Canons.

So why do you reject all of the available both Canonical and independent sources that are all within 100 years of the events of Jesus' life and death?

And we have independent attestation that Jesus lived.

What made you think that no such sources existed?

No idea. Did anyone talk and write about him within 10-15 years of his death?

Nomad

Toto

Of course, you're right. I only post here when I have some down time at work or in my little spare time, and usually only in response to some egregious fallacy from the apologetics crowd. You, however, seem to spend all daylight hours Pacific Standard Time on this board. I figure there is no way you could be earning a living practicing law in LA. Are you retired? Is your job title Missionary to the Internet?

But you continue to evade my question. Why is this so important to you? Is it the first beachhead for conversion?

Nomad has already stated that all history is ideological propaganda (paraphrase), so why should I trust any sources, or believe in anything historical? My interest in history is mostly in the uses that people make of it.

And I do not think that Christianity must be destroyed - only the fundamentalist and quasi-fundamentalist variety, that continues to claim that the Jews killed Christ based on the alleged historical "facts" of the Bible, or that the Bible is a source of morality.

I'm not going to have a lot of time today. I'll check back later.

Lance, what is a "minor degree?" I minored in religious history but didn't get a degree for it. Not that I recall anyway.

Toto, I will only say this once. Yes, I am a practicing attorney.