Originally Posted by Toto

I suggest that you investigate before your claim something like that. There are coins, monuments, contemporary writings for many of those Roman emperors. We have things that they themselves wrote, descriptions by their enemies. We have a tomb for the father of Alexander the Great. (See the threads referenced here on Alexander.)

But let's go back to Paul. Where in his letters does he identify James or Peter as a follower of a human named Jesus who lived in recent times? "Brother of the Lord" is too ambiguous.

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Thanks, Attonitus. I guess your circular reasoning left you too dizzy to respond to my questions, so let me ask them again.

Originally Posted by Attonitus

Jesus doesn't exist in the history.

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Or history was deleted by xians because they did not like at all to worship a criminal (for the Romans) or a freedom fighter (for the Jews). The multi-century hatred between xian and Jews originated in the hatred between resistants and Roman collaborators. As only the collabos survived after 888 auc the xians could steal the literature of the resistants and change completely their meaning.

Originally Posted by Attonitus

Decades after what fact? Here doesn't exist any historicity, only a mythological narratio from the beginning.

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

My problem with the Q hypothesis is that I have nowhere near the background necessary to judge its viability...

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I was impressed with Kloppenborg's discussion of the various theories competing with Q in Excavating Q. He is considered one of the more prominent "Q scholars" so you can guess his conclusion but his arguments appear to me to be sound.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That a collection of sayings were attributed to a single figure does not establish that said figure actually spoke them or even existed. Comparing Q and the Gospel of Thomas shows that somebody is falsely attributing sayings to Jesus because the philosophy/theology expressed is incompatible.

The sayings source still leaves us with the chicken and egg question: Did a real guy produce impressive teachings that were later distorted and added to or did a like-minded group (or groups) collect sayings they felt expressed their beliefs and eventually attribute them to a fictional founder?

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Jesus in Q is depicted as God's Wisdom incarnate but not as the Messiah.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Unfortunately for this argument, Christians weren't asserting a historical figure as part of their argument until late in the 2nd century. Prior to that, the arguments were about whether or not their beliefs regarding the Sacrificed Messiah/Son were consistent with Jewish Scripture.

Originally Posted by rlogan

Well, mrmoderate - this board does have a standard of documentation for claims that is quite a bit higher than the political board.

I am in complete agreement with Toto. There is no separate standard here for secular and nonsecular personages.

Hey Attonitus - your english is improving! And yes - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christians use this false analogy. If you can't find the grave of so-and-so then you need to agree Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally Posted by spin

The word "other" assumes that Jesus was a historical figure and you have assumed what you need to demonstrate.

What are your historical sources within 100 years for the existence of this Jesus person you have been babbling about? If you've been here long enough, you'll have seen that there is a lot of evidence for the addition to certain literary works of pseudo-historical references to the man. All I ask is for one historical source within 100 years which seriously attests to the existence of Jesus, you know, no xian statements thrust into the mouths of Jews, no indications of multitudes of xians in Rome when the religion was just supposedly starting off, no reports from classical writers that don't get noticed by xian apologists for the first 200 years. Just one historical source. Come on, or forget this line of useless thought.

If you want to see what Julius Caesar looked like you can go and see a few of his statues, try his inscriptions (see a few here), or his coins. If that's not enough, you can see the altar put up to him by Augustus in the Roman forum. You can follow the post-Caesar history of events related to his death through inscriptions and coins, including his deification by the Romans, the retribution for his assassins, the arrival of the principate, all as it happened through the coins. The only people who put up the argument that there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Julius Caesar are people who haven't got a clue about history. They just like the relationship between the initials.

Now, I'm not saying that Legion holds to such a view, but any do. It should be noted that historical figures, some of whom will fit into Legion's "other historical figures", are seen as historical not only from evidence from the time of that person but from the period immediately afterwards. "Great" people leave a wake that requires response. Pompey's death in Egypt left the writers of the Psalms of Solomon gloating over the come-uppance of the man who violated the temple. The death of Marcus Antonius left no-one to challenge Octavian's (Augustus's) power, leading finally to the principate. The death of Mithridates after a long battle with Rome suddenly left Rome as de facto rulers of Asia Minor. And so it goes.

There are direct historical consequences to the actions of historical figures. People's beliefs are obviously not the realm of those consequences. Beliefs need no connection to history at all. Testimonies through belief are in themselves of no use to history, other than to the history of the belief. Many figures called historical figures are really names attached to texts, Horace, Diodorus, Herodotus. One can claim that they aren't historical -- it's possible -- but we have to deal with the fact that someone produced the texts and it is convenient to call the texts by the traditionally attached names. What does it matter? I could just as easily jettison Shakespeare, yet still have to deal with the literature. That literature itself is part of history, for it can be placed exactly in time based on both external and internal evidence.

So, Legion, we await just one piece of undisputed contemporary, or near contemporary, evidence for the character you would like to be considered historical.


spin

Originally Posted by Legion

spin, I really don't care if you believe Jesus existed or not; it makes absolutely no difference to me.

Originally Posted by Legion

So forgive me if I don't feel compelled to try to make you think he existed.

Originally Posted by Legion

I've never claimed that there is proof he existed, much less that I can prove he existed (and I've especially never suggested that if I could at least prove he existed then you should believe what is said about him).

Originally Posted by Legion

Now, while I suspect that Josephus had included an entry about Jesus, it's pretty clear to all of us (I presume) that it's been tampered with by later Christians to conform to their doctrinal beliefs, which means that there's no way to actually know if there was originally an entry about him or not.

Originally Posted by Legion

Given that there isn't a known historical writing that touches on this that we can't be certain hasn't been tampered with, you've presented an impossible task. Yet you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist anymore than anyone else can prove that he did.

Originally Posted by Legion

So, as long as I'm not telling you that you should believe something yet failing to give you a reason why you should believe it, I don't see why you should expect me to change my opinion on whether or not Jesus existed when you can't prove that he didn't either.