rcscwc

Even for Socrates the evidence is quite strong. But yes, there is hardly any evidence for Jesus, while tons of documents SHOULD have been there.

Of course, gosples have large foot prints of fabrication.

But the, at that time the name Jesus was so common, Judea must have been crawling with Jesuses.

Christian evidence is so weak, it is worth nearly ZERO. Non christian evidence? ZERO.

I am saying the same, but wording it differently.

rcscwc

His very trial seems to be fabricated. His arrest is fabricated too. If Jesus was such a hot figure that thousands followed him everywhere [as alleged in bible], then he should have been easily identifiable by an man. But no, they HAD to bribe Judas to identify him!! Why? Fabricated account.

Jews held trials on Wedensday, the market day, when maximum number could attend and see the punishment. In his case it was on Friday. Why?

andrewcriddle

Could you please give your evidence that Jewish trials and/or punishments for serious offences were usually carried out on Wednesday ?

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

Assuming for a moment that there was a historical Jesus, but that he was not a magic half man half god water walking son of a virgin, but rather an ordinary man later turned myth, why would we expect surviving documents from people who knew him directly...and second, are we sure there aren't any?

If the 'historical Jesus' was an ordinary man later turned myth, he could have been anyone, possibly even someone documented in surviving texts under a different name.

aa5874

But, really, tons of documents have survived about Jesus. There is no other figure that I know where so much have survived from antiquity.

The tons of documents have cemented the theory that Jesus was a myth or fictional character.

The mythological or fictional characteristics of Jesus were so wide spread that even a forged description of Jesus claimed he was seen alive on third day after he was supposed to be dead and buried.

Tons of documents have survived about the myth called Jesus.

Generally you get either get one or the other.

If a myth, one would expect documents of a myth. And we have tons.

If historic, one would expect documents that support history. We have none.

We have already found tons of documents that support myth.

How in the world are we going to find documents to show the opposite at the same time?

spamandham

...but it is not known what history preceded the documents we have. It is possible someone just sat down and wrote it all one afternoon (well, maybe over a weekend). It is also possible that it didn't happen like that.

Declaring it all fiction does not explain *why* it was written.

aa5874

People read the documents first before they make a declaration.

These documents have been around for hundreds of years. The declaration that Jesus was myth or fictional was made hunderds of years ago.


And there is no obligation for anyone to wait or refrain from making a declaration that Jesus is mythical or fictional because someone else is not sure, don't know or don't care.

Once all the documentation of Jesus of the NT that have been seen are fictional, then the claim that Jesus was fictional is reasonable.

I am not aware of any case where every single piece of evidence from every single source is used or where if some unknown evidence from some unknown source cannot be found then a determination is cancelled or delayed for hundreds of years.


Tons of documents depict Jesus as myth or fiction. Jesus was a myth.

spamandham

Let's say you're right. Jesus is a myth. Why did the myth develop, and how did the myth influence the 'fiction' found in the canon?

dog-on

Perhaps it was the result of a tendency by early Christians to view their god as the true god and all other gods as false gods as well as the view that they had now taken the mantle of being the "chosen ones", (along with a history), from another group.

Maybe this led to the need to place their god into recent history, though not recent enough to be examined. Like maybe a hundred or so years earlier.

spamandham

Why? Pluralism was the norm. The god of Christianity is fundamentally different from the gods of the society from which Christianity sprang. Concocting a fake history is all well and good, but that doesn't explain why they felt a need to concoct a fake history.