youngalexander

Paul, the earliest christian writer clearly did not know of an historical jesus. Apart from a handful of contentious quotes, whose very rarity is curious in itself, he provides no details of jesus life or ministry or teachings.

In particular, upon those occasions when in dispute with rivals, when a reference to jesus' sayings, teachings or example would be most appropriate, Paul never cites them, but refers to the OT instead.

Paul was in close contact with the early worshipers for sufficient time to have absobed a great deal of this information. Yet he appears not to have done so.

If the earliest Christian writer knows not an historical jesus, then jesus did not exist.

krosero

1. Religion, not based on reason and logic, resists reason and logic.

2. Current scholarship about Jesus, all religiously based or friendly to religion, resists the idea of a mythical Jesus, often with passion and anger.

3. The idea of a mythical Jesus must be something reasonable that unreasonable entities (such as religion) will resist with illogic and passion.

4. Therefore, Jesus did not exist.

Toto

I suspect this is the sort of parody that the OP specifically rejected.

jeffevnz

Sorry for not giving the kind of response you're looking for, but I think this thread would be far more interesting and useful if the required conclusion was "Therefore Jesus probably did not exist." Inductive logic instead of deductive. I doubt anyone could make a sound, deductively valid argument that Jesus didn't exist, but there are plenty of convincing probabalistic arguments.

Peter Kirby

I endorse the inclusion of arguments that, "Therefore, Jesus probably didn't exist."

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

I think Ben has put the lack of evidence argument very well. I think the rules allow to expand on someone else's contribution? As I have said out elsewhere, just pointing out that a hypothesis lacks evidence, while a start, is not enough. I would therefore like to amend and expand Ben's contribution as follows:

1. If, among contemporary or near contemporary documents, only Christian or Christianized documents mention Jesus, then there is not enough evidence to assume Jesus existed.
2. Among contemporary or near contemporary documents, only Christian or Christianized documents mention Jesus.
3. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to assume Jesus existed.
4. In addition it has been shown (Robert Price e.g.) that just about everything Jesus is supposed to have said or done can be derived from pre-existing or contemporaneous sources.
5. 4, together with 3, is enough to change "there is not enough evidence to assume that Jesus existed" into "there is enough evidence to assume that Jesus did not exist."

A slightly different ending than proposed in the OP, but then what the OP proposes is unscientific: we can never state with absolute certainty that a theory is true, we can only state that it is the best explanation given what we know so far.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

A gloss on the meaning of the OP: "Therefore, Jesus did not exist" does not state an absolute certainty.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

I think the rules allow one to elaborate on one's own argument as well, so I'd like to present an expanded version of the above:

1. If, among contemporary or near contemporary documents, only Christian or Christianized documents mention Jesus, then there is not enough evidence to assume Jesus existed.
2. Among contemporary or near contemporary documents, only Christian or Christianized documents mention Jesus.
3. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to assume Jesus existed.
4. In addition it has been shown (Robert Price e.g.) that just about everything Jesus is supposed to have said or done can be derived from pre-existing or contemporaneous sources.
5. Furthermore, the Jesus story as we have it fits in well with the mythical framework that was already established at the time. Examples of this are the Mysteries (Freke and Gandy), and the fact that the dates of Jesus birth and death fit in well with two important dates in Sun worship (winter solstice and vernal equinox). We can add to this that the symbolic value of Jesus birth and death seems to correspond to the equivalent Sun events: (re)birth of the light, and victory of light over darkness.
6. While 3 shows there is not enough reason to assume Jesus existed, 4 and 5 show how the Jesus story was put together and (part of) why it was thus put together. This is enough to change "there is not enough evidence to assume that Jesus existed" into "there is enough evidence to assume that Jesus did not exist."

The trend here should be clear: add to the "not enough evidence" argument a number of arguments that tie the Jesus story to then extant myths and traditions, and you have a solid foundation on which to reject a historical Jesus.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

1. The dying-rising savior gods of the ancient Mediterranean did not exist.
2. Jesus is a dying-rising savior god of the ancient Mediterranean.
3. Therefore, Jesus did not exist.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Concerning krosero's contribution: I would not treat it as a parody. I'd like to be more inclusive than editorial at this stage, so if you have any hesitation, adopt this seventh rule: Be bold.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby