archibald

Kapyong, I really don't think I can continue to respond to your assertions because most of the time, they are just knee-jerk and not substantive, and very often badly misinterpret what I am saying (apart from Alexander the Great, I'll concede on that in a minute).

No. I most categorically do not assume he was historical. The documents are simply not late in relation to when he was supposed to have existed. It is worth quoting Richard Carrier again here (from 2009) since he seems to be respected. On page 71 of 'Not the Impossible Faith' he says , 'First, as to priests moving to nazareth within thirty years of the time of Christ, Holding tries to dismiss this as an inscription of 100 years too late - even though it documents an event only 30 years after the time of Christ'.

Now, either Carrier is also 'assuming' something, or neither of us are. I suggest the latter. He is simply reading he documentary evidence for what it tells him, in the first instance. I expect he still gives himself lattitude to decide that Jesus may not have been historical, as do I.

As to Alexander the Great, I do not know what Tim O'Neill, or should I say the professor he cited, meant. You would have to ask them. Perhaps, they meant that evidence of the biographical details of either character are comparably vague. I do not know. As to your evidence, I am not familiar with it (because I am not an expert on A the G) or whether it is contested, or when it is supposed to have been written (or minted, in the case of the coins).

My general point is not to start a patently losing case that Jesus is as likely to have existed as A the G (which I don't subscribe to in the first instance), my point is that the evidence for Jesus is not lacking, or late, or of a comparably lesser type or nature, in the context of what we should reasonably or objectively expect, or indeed have, for similarly minor figures from ancient history. And you can't get much more minor than a supposed preacher from 'not the centre of the known universe' Galillee, who (allegedly) makes it to the big smoke just in time to be wiped off the record a few days later.

aa5874

Of course you MUST ASSUME since you ADMIT there is NO proof for HJ and Nothing is Conclusive.

Did you actually READ what you just wrote.

Can't you see your BLATANT contradiction?

You ASSUMED documents were not late for when the SUPPOSED Jesus existed

Well, you don't know what you are talking about.

1. You have NO proof that HJ is more likely explanation.

2. You cannot conclude HJ is the more likely explanation.

3. You are NOT certain that HJ is the more likely explanation.

Please, please, please.

Stop wasting time. Your position is irrational

You are promoting propaganda. There is ZERO evidence for HJ of Nazareth because if there was it would BE PLASTERED all over the INTERNET.

HJers WOULD be JUMPING up and down and ALL OVER THE TOWN proclaiming that they have credible evidence.

But, HJers have NOTHING but fraud, fiction, myth and forgeries about Jesus which is FAR in excess of known persons of history .

Now, Please name some minor historical figures of antiquity that were similarly described as the Child of a Ghost, that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended?

archibald

Of course I read everything you write. I consider you to be by far one of the more rational posters here.

But the word sceptics is incorrect. There are a lot, possibly even a majority (it's debateable, but what polls I've seen suggest that it's not even a majority of atheists) of sceptics who disbelieve a lot of what is in the texts, but don't go all the way to mythicist. You have a false dichotomy there.

Btw, I think I edited my previous post after you posted. Sorry. You might want to read it again, perhaps comment on Carrier (specifically in relation to this point about how an historian treats the 'evidence', I mean) since I bought the book on your recommendation. And I am enjoying it*. :]

Oh by the way, regarding hearsay, some citations are simply easier to relocate than others. If you think my recollection of that citation for the History prof is possibly inaccurate, think again, or put your money where your mouth is. If you make it worth my while, I'll make the effort to hunt it down for confirmation. It was quite a while ago, and I am no longer a member of ratskep. We can exchange details by PM, and I will wager you £50 that I am not incorrect. The reason I feel so sure is that I clearly remember asking Tim O'Neill to recite it on a subsequent thread to the one in which he first cited it. And he cited it again. If you doubt me, take the bet.

*For a number of reasons. Not all in support of a view I had held previously. For example, he makes a good case that there was an OT scripture which predicted a messiah (specifically and 'outright' a messiah) who would be killed prematurely. The passage in question, Daniel 9:26, is a much better example of this than Isaiah 52-53 or Psalm 22, which I think you mentioned. I don't know why the Daniel one does not get more citations.

mountainman

O'Neill defends the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, and refers to Bishop Warburton and other scholars of the 18th century as Mythicists because they are arguing against the authenticity of the TF.

The evidence is abysmal. Moreover there is manifest evidence of 4th century fraud and pious forgery. One long-standing British archaeologist went so far as to write an article about The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity. To understand the mythicist position in a technical evidence-driven manner, you should read this article.

judge

I doubt there is anyone who has posted more on the topic of an historical jesus and a mythical jesus here than you.
By comparison Archibald has posted relatively little here.

Why dont you spend more time on these issues?

archibald

I'm not getting into details of Tim O'Neill's possible flaws or whatever. Everyone has flaws. He may be right on some points and he may be wrong on others. His general historical knowledge is pretty good, IMO, and in any case, I am not trying to 'big up' Tim O'Neill. I am referring to one particular assertion, that the evidence is at least as as good as we should reasonably expect for many, many minor characters from ancient history.



I have read that article before. The archeological evidence is abysmal. That is uncontentious. But how much archeological evidence for many of the other people mentioned solely (for example) by Josephus, is there?

I must admit, I found it a bit odd that that article seemed to make so much of the 'Christus/Chrestus' thing. I don't see it as espcially indicative of anything, unless there was also a Chrestus who was killed in Judea by Pilate, who had Roman followers?

mm, we all have the same evidence to work with. Mythicists and Hjers. It makes no sense for one side to disparage the evidence. You yourself go way beyond it, into speculation. More than many others here, actually. That's fine, I have no problem with speculation (we all have to do it) but it sounds a bit odd, you pointing to a lack of evidence.

Stringbean

I know this post was not directed at me but thanks for that link. Heres what some scholars say:

Dean Millman, Chrisitan Historian writes:
Rev Dr Giles writes:
Robert Smith, Professor, says Some do not want to understand the position. They cannot believe that some have the gall to question christianity.

aa5874

Please, why have you NOT yet presented any evidence for your HJ of Nazareth. Tim ONeill is NOT posting here right now.

What KNOWLEDGE do you have of HJ of Nazareth?

Call Tim ONeill on the Phone for some evidence.

Perhaps only TIM ONEILL can EXPLAIN HJ of Nazareth to you.

Why did you NOT consult with TIM first?

Tell us why it was embarrassing for an ordinary sinner man to be baptized by John the Baptist when he usually baptized perhaps HUNDREDS of ordinary sinner men.

Would it NOT be embarrassing for an ordinary sinner man to BAPTISE THE BAPTIZER.

HJ of Nazareth doesn't make sense.

John the Baptists probably BAPTIZED HUNDREDS of ordinary sinner men and John the BAPTIZER wants an ordinary sinner man to BAPTIZE him!!!!

What a big Joke

HJ of Nazareth, the ordinary sinner man, is a BIG JOKE.

That is the most likely explanation for HJ of Nazareth

And after that "Paul" started to worship an ORDINARY SINNER MAN as God Incarnate and traveled ALL OVER the Roman Empire telling people an ORDINARY SINNER man was RAISED from the dead and that JEWISH LAWS should be abandoned.

What a big Joke!!!

HJ of Nazareth is MADNESS.

mountainman

There is also evidence that the 4th century monotheist state church fabricated evidence and incorporated forged evidence into their historical narratives. A massive tax-exempt industry based on Jesus and the Apostles and the Saints and the Bones and Relics of the martyrs commenced during the 4th century and continues unto this very day. Many new forgeries are created each decade.


How many shrines, temples, cult statues, figurines and trinkets have been found and in attestation to how many religious cults in antiquity? Nothing for the christian cult. This should make people suspicious.


There have been a number of discussions on the "Chrestos" vs "Christos" disambiguation and the evidence for "Christians" and "Chrestians". It is not a trivial issue by any means. The divinity described by Plato and written about by the Platonists as the supreme One is also called "The Good" - "Chrestos" in the Greek. Here are some notes.


I have indexed all the evidence discussed in the recent popular and academic literature under various categories, item by item and am prepared to address and discuss any item.

If we have a vacuum of all types of evidence before the appearance of Constantine and a massive explosion of all types of evidence with the rule of this Roman Emperor, I do not see it as odd to be suspicious that the "Early Christian History" authored and published during Constantine's rule may have been fabricated.

Everyone seems to forget that the widespread publication of the Bible was the product of, and one of the rackets associated with, a war, introduced by the supreme military victor of that war. Its purpose was to unite the Roman Empire into a centralised monotheistic state religion, and make redundant the huge milieu of Egypto-Graeco-Roman religious cults of that epoch - Nicaea.

The history of the events surrounding the council of Nicaea were written by the heresiological victors in the 4th and 5th centuries, and we are becoming more and more aware that they twisted the historical truth to suit their own agenda. There is a great similarity between Judaism, Sassanid Persian Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam in that they are all "Book Religions". But the similarity does not end there. In each case, the "Holy Writings" were edited and "canonised" and published at the closure of a massive empire wide war by the supreme military victor, to form the basis of a centralised state monotheistic religion for the whole empire.

"War is a Racket". The Hebrew Bible, the Sassanid Persian Avesta, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran are the products of the racket of war.

MCalavera

It's MADNESS, I say. MADNESS. MADNESS. MADNESS.

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?