Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from the Abrahamic Religions forum:

In the following article, Richard Carrier compares the Resurrection of Jesus to Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. The article is too long to quote in detail.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/rubicon.html

Huon

First of all, we need that sschlichter gives a list of some possible proofs of the existence of Julius Caesar :
Are his shroud or his sudarion a proof of his existence ?
Is the Rubicon a proof of his existence ?
Did he commit miracles ?
Where was he buried ? And, was he buried at all ?

aa5874

The existence or non-existence of Julius Caesar has NO bearing whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of JESUS of the NT Canon.

In other words, it may be a mistake to believe Julius Caesar existed but that mistake CANNOT alter the existence or non-existence of JESUS of the NT.

Now, JESUS of the NT Canon was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a VIRGIN called Mary, See Matthew 1-18 and Luke 1.35. JESUS of the NT Canon was also the WORD which was GOD, the Creator of everything in heaven and earth, See John 1.

There can be NO PROOF that JESUS of the NT Canon did exist.

All things considered non-existing have NO PROOF of their existence.

JESUS OF THE NT satisfies the fundamental condition of a non-existing entity.

JESUS of the NT did NOT exist as described in the NT Canon.

mountainman

The bookmakers' money is on the Lord God Caesar Augustus.

Multiple unambiguous coinage.
These guys ran their own mints.

Huon

mountainman, remember that these coins are not carbon dated, so they could easily have been made in the XXIIth century CE (/joke, for those who need it).

rizdek

The word "believe" is the issue.

I "accept" with some reservations that a person named Julius Caesar probably lived. Historians seem to agree on this, and it isn't particularly remarkable that a geographical area under one government (Rome) should have a leader, and that leader was likely revered/feared and "did things" like mint coins. His name might as well be Julius Caesar as some other name. It makes little difference (other than if I was taking a history test) whether I even know about Julius Caesar. Even then, I certainly don't have to "believe" in Julius Caesar.

Per Christians, one must believe, believe in and even worship Jesus to avoid eternal damnation. As pointed out earlier, the circumstances of Jesus' birth, life and death are remarkable and it seems, based on the lack of contemporary evidence of Jesus' power, more plausible that they are fiction.

In general, theists and Christians especially, seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "accepting" things operationally (which is how I pretty much view most of the things I say I "know," and actually committing oneself to "believe unreservedly." Perhaps it is a character trait. They may be unable to distinguish between the subtle difference. To them, they must believe in Jesus, it's part of their dogma. To do otherwise is a sin. It isn't a casual, "yeah, it seems like it's true" rather it is a "it is absolutely true and both you and I must agree or one of us is going to hell to be punished for eternity."

seyorni

There are thousands of eyewitnesses and public records of Octavian/Augustus. We have his writings. We have eyewitness descriptions of him, his behavior, his daily activities, &c.

We have none of these for Jesus.

Jesus is like Beowulf, King Arthur or Gilgamesh, known through heresay, legend and myth, perhaps based on an actual person, perhaps not.

aa5874

Whether or not we had eyewitnesses of Julius Caesar has NO actual relevance to the history of Jesus.

We have a description of the conception and origin of Jesus in Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, and John 1 and it is most likely fictitious or mythological.

We have descriptions of his baptism by John when the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove, his temptation by the Devil where Jesus and the Devil was on the pinnacle of the Temple, the miracles of Jesus where he cursed trees, walked on water and talked to sea-storms.

We have a description of his transfiguration where he changed his physical features and brought dead prophets back to life.

And when he was supposedly crucified, and was dead he came back to life on the third day and was eating fish with his disciples before he ascended through some clouds on his way to heaven.

Now, whether or not Julius Caesar did exist does not alter the extreme likelihood that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL.

Clivedurdle

Isn't this the better comparison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Clivedurdle

Is there a built in assumption that somehow certain peoples did not write stories?

The Ancient Greeks can have their fables, the Grimms can collect them from the peasants, but the early Christians had grown out of these superstitions.

Isn't the burden of proof on the xians to show their stories are not myths? Why are they the exception?