cogitans

Seeing as it essentially self-destructs when you fail to meet the burden of proof, my help isn't required in destroying it.

Oh, really? Did you just come up with that, or are you going to humour me with an example so I know you're not just pulling this out of your arse, much like your original assertion?

If a unicorn was found, you would have to admit that you were wrong in asserting their non-existence. Thus, you recognize that it is possible for unicorns to be present, and so you can't speak of proof of absence.

Oh, and if you're going to quote me, can you at least get my name on this forum right? It's "cogitans", not "cognitants". I know Latin has gone slightly out of style by now, but please.

No, because they don't claim that in their capacity as historians, and there are plenty of non-Christian historians anyway who don't object to the historicity of Jesus. Most historians by far, don't, especially considering the wacky alternatives that have been put forth by people on the absolute quasischolarly fringe.

I have to hand it to you though, at least you're entertaining.

aa5874

Just as I expected, you really have nothing to say about the existence of Jesus.

You have NOTHING to contribute.

cogitans

:rolling: This coming from someone who started a thread with the title "Jesus, the twelve and Paul of the NT are fiction".

aa5874

I think you have finally got it.

The evidence for Jesus is a BIG Joke.

cogitans

If you had said "evidence for the Resurrection", I'd be more than happy to agree. At the moment, the only big joke is you.

mountainman

Hey cogitans,

How about providing some evidence that we can all laugh about? Over. You do not seem to appreciate the position in which you have placed yourself. By what evidence do you entertain that warm and fuzzy feeling of truth in the the assertion that Jesus was not a fiction character? Who told you this?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

So then aa5874 who wrote the apochrypha? And when you find a C14 citation for the new testament canon, please let me know. Over.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The historiciy of Jesus and the historicity for christianity must be somehow related. How can they be not? Most people (quite understandably) approach the existence of prenicene christian origins as a foregone conclusion since that is the traditional story ... back with the star of Bethlehem or however one packages up this belief baggage. I have meticulously gone through the independent citations referenced in a number of published contemporary books to glean these citations to the presumed existence of christianity in the period of the traditional origins 000 to 325 CE. I have listed the epigraphy and everything. Not one of these archaeological items can be cited as unambiguous evidence for the foregone conclusion of the prenicene HJ and/or christianity. The purpose of this of course is nothing but is to double check the literary account and chronology of Eusebius to archaeology which I understand a reasonable thing to do, since I value the relative corroboration of various forms of evidence.

Best wishes



Pete

Doug Shaver

Obviously, evidence relevant to either issue will be relevant to the other. It does not follow that whatever disproves one must disprove the other.

I don't much care what "most people" do. I care what most scholars do, and I care about why they do it, and I especially care about having a good reason for questioning them if I happen to think they are mistaken about something. I believe I have good reason to question their consensus about Jesus' historicity. I don't know any reason whatsoever to question their consensus about when and where Christianity originated. All I'm questioning in that area is a couple of details about how it originated.

cogitans

Historical scholarship is unlikely to convince those already committed to the notion that Jesus never existed. I welcome actual evidence that Jesus did not in fact exist (contrary to what is usually thought by people with actual academic degrees of relevance). It is a matter of relative indifference for me as I simply want the truth; unlike Christians who must acknowledge historicity and the Resurrection, or certain non-Christians who could never bring themselves to acknowledge the possibility of even the former. I'd like to think there's an honourable middle road there.

One must wonder which other persons of ancient history you would find cause to reject on insufficient evidence, seeing as the evidence for any given person in the ancient world is pretty poor in the first place.