Toto

Tim O'Neill has posted here. I am familiar with his unconvincing arguments. The search for the historical Jesus is far removed from the search for the historical Alexander the Great, and anyone who claims that they are comparable is engaged in apologetic obfuscation.

Aren't there other issues that deserve your attention? Global warming? The ecological crisis? The decline of Western Civ? The search for a killer chocolate cake?

Toto

Nightmare isn't quite the right word, but Groundhog Day comes to mind.

aa5874

Well, why ask a question that you KNOW have NO answer?


What nonsense!!!! FFS, we DON'T need opinion we NEED SOURCES for YOUR explanation.

What a waste of time!!!

You don't even know about HJ of Nazareth and want people to go and LOOK for some boy name Tim.

Who is that boy?????

Well, show us the evidence for HJ of Nazareth that is NOT poor.

Why tell us to look for a boy name Tim?

FFS!!!!

Everybody is waiting for YOUR "NOT POOR" EVIDENCE.

What is the SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth?

Sheshbazzar

The Bible + beliefs= just cain't admit to ever being wrong. :banghead:

archibald

As to your general debate fatigue, I commiserate, but maybe you should consider a sabbatical.

You might even consider whether your own inclination (which you are perfectly entitled to have) to defend mythicism from attack is not keeping the issue going as much as anything else. :]

Anyhow, in mentioning Alexander the Great, I was only indirectly (ie. via T O'Neill in this case) referring to something said by a tenured history professor. Whether you and he would agree is not my concern.

Nor is your opinion of Tim O'Neill's arguments. Like anybody else's, they are imperfect, but we were specifically referring to the question of the nature of the evidence for Jesus, in the context of comparing it to other figures, especially comparably minor figures, from ancient history. On that particular point, I think you are wrong and he is right. The idea that there is a lack of evidence for Jesus (the earthly person) is one of the least rational assertions doing the rounds on this forum. Sorry, but it simply is.

And the idea, implied by some (though not you) that historians (or we) have to disregard ancient religious texts just because they are heavily religious is unfounded. How many what we would even describe as coming close to 'historians', never mind objective historians, do you think there were in those days? Precious few. FFS, I've even had Buddha cited to me, and there wasn't anything written down about him for 400 years! Compared to this, 30 years (gMark) is piddling. Practically contemporary. Yet the same person appeared to see no contradiction in citing Buddha. I've said it before. Jesus is being treated as a special case, in terms of suspicions about the history, and I sometimes wonder why that is. I don't know the answer, all I can note is the inconsistent handling of his case.

Yes, I know some like to see Mark's account as allegory, but even that is simply a way of explaining the evidence, it's nothing to do with a lack of evidence, and in any case, I don't think it's a particularly persuasive explanation.

Same goes for Doherty. He cites the evidence, which on the face of it strongly refers to an earthly figure, and he also tries to recast the evidence (not very convincingly, IMO) as having a non-earthly setting.

Incidentally, thanks to you, I am into chapter 3 of 'Not The Impossible Faith', and it is very good, in some ways (not in others). Given that Carrier is almost the only ancient historian cited in these matters (bar Doherty), it's interesting to see that he COPIOUSLY draws on evidence from the bible (including the NT and Paul) in his (IMO successful so far) efforts to score points against the (not very prominent or difficult to argue against) apologist J.P.Holding, though the book does not seem to be about HJ/MJ, but about Holding's weak-sounding argument about Christianity. At one point, Carrier even refers to Paul, saying, 'he makes no mention of anything other than an ordinary birth into the Davidic line'.

By the way, chapter 3 is an eye opener. In his (again successful) attempts to torpedo Holding's suggestion that Christianity had a tough time because 'Resurrection in the flesh' of a formerly human person (or a person believed to have been human, or described as human) was a tough sell, Carrier cites what he ends up describing as a 'geat abundance' of beliefs of around the time, and earlier, that many people not only believed in it, but almost expected it. I was left with the distinct feeling, not for the first time, that Dohertry is barking up the wrong, 'world of myth' tree entirely.

To be quite honest, it surprises me that someone like you gives that weak hypothesis the time of day.

Toto

This sort of hearsay appeal to authority is unfortunately typical of the "evidence."

Did you even read what I wrote? There is just enough documentary evidence for Christians to infer that there must have been a historical person, but not enough for skeptics. What's your problem with this?

In comparison, evidence for Alexander includes references to specific contemporary accounts, identifiable people who knew him, people who hated him, coins, etc. Evidence for Julius Caesar includes his own writings.

:banghead: Of course they don't disregard them, but they don't mistake them for newspaper reporting.

Stringbean

Thats cool! Tells me all I need to know that you have not one shred of the following:

You have not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.


Nice movement of the goal posts your good at it. PAUL was not a contemporary of this jesus. He never saw or met a physical man! His jesus was a vision!

I REST my CASE! You have nothing but opinion.

Kapyong

Gday,

The question is entirely relevant - history depends on evidence.
But you don't have any real evidence, so you have to pretend supernatural religious myths are history.


So what?
We are talking about Jesus.
Pls don't change the subject.


Wrong.
We DO have contemporary and archeological evidence for Alexander - such as the Diary of Esagila, or the destruction of Persepolis.


Pardon?
You just excused away the LACK of evidence!
Now you say we DO have a LOT of evidence?

Oh, you mean the GOSPELS etc. ?!
You're kidding, right?


Not late?
You mean : it's soon after Jesus existed.

Which just assumes what you are trying to prove - that Jesus existed.

If Jesus did NOT exist, then NONE of these documents are "not late" because there was NO Jesus to be "not late" after.

You are just begging your question - assuming Jesus existed, to show the Gospels are "not late", which proves Jesus existed.


On the contrary, the LACK of evidence is a good argument, and it argues against Jesus existing.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well then,
What a great pity you didn't actually check the facts before insisting there was no contemporary / archeological evidence for Alexander.

Then you might have found that there IS such evidence - the contemporary diary of Esagila, coins of Alexander, destruction of cities etc.

What a pity you just repeated what you heard without checking.


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

So, let's recap -

We asked for contemporary and/or archeological evidence for Jesus.

But apparently it's STUPID to even ASK for real evidence, because we all forgot what 'evidence' REALLY means.
So what does it REALLY mean ?
It means "any source that we can rely on".

ANY source that they believe will do, when it comes to Jesus.
So what sources ARE these "any we believe" sources?
The Christian writings of course!

ANY source they believe will do for a believer - so their religious books of beliefs are just fine "for a good historical reconstruction of Jesus".

But where did these beliefs about Jesus come from in the first place?
From the Christian writings such as the Gospels and epistles.

In other words - the Christian writings about Jesus are the evidence that the Christian writings about Jesus are true.

We don't need no stinkin' badges, we don't need no archeological or contemporary evidence to show the Christian writings are true.

No !

We prove these Christian writings about Jesus to be true by the evidence of these Christian writings about Jesus !

And it's STUPID to even ASK for any REAL evidence.



What does 'earlier' mean exactly?
It means 'closer in time to Jesus' of course.

But if Jesus didn't exist in the first place, then NONE of these writings are early, because there was no Jesus to be close in time to.

Once again this is an attempt to argue Jesus existed (because the books are close in time to Jesus), based on simply assuming that Jesus existed !


K.