juergen

I voted maybe - wish I knew. It's strange that the only people reporting his actions were followers, yet contemporary historians in Jesus' time failed to notice this life-changing miracle worker that raised dead people and fed thousands.

mountainman

The question is perhaps best answered not by any appeal
to a hierarchical or authoritative integrity, but by the
reference to the relational integrity of the history of
the "nation of christians" arising from the literary source
commonly called "the new testament".

The relational integrity of the NT is savagely impaired
by the archaeological evidence, nevermind the literary
fabrications, frauds, misrepresentations, interpolations,
etc which are known to have had happened.

The problem is that Biblical scholarship assumes a solid
HJ focussed conjecture, with the result that the evidence
is ever only seen through one side of the moebius papyri.

The tomb of Basilides in Rome inscribed with the text
"He Sleeps" has been presumed christian on this basis.

In the field of ancient history, this presumption would
be scoffed at and literally scorned because of its lack
of relational integrity. I could go on to give scores of
similar examples in the period 033 to 333.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

makerowner

mountainman why do you always
put weird line breaks in your posts? It
makes it hard to read and is kind of
annoying.

Solitary Man

Doesn't change the fact that they're hearsay.

Antipope Innocent II

Congratulations. I'm an atheist too and I was also a believer, though for a couple of decades short of 58 years. When I first realised it was all a crock, I was pretty vehement too. And I was inclined to believe some pretty kooky theories about the "real" story for a while as well.

But then I calmed down and I also did a few university degrees that taught me to sort solid historical theories from kooky ones.

Is the idea that Jesus never existed kooky? Well, this atheist (who isn't that much younger than you) would say that some versions of that theory are and some aren't. But I'd also say that all versions of that theory have some serious problems.

I'd also say that after a few decades of examining this stuff and discussing it with many people I've come across a lot of people who have gone from being fundamentalist, black and white, extremist thinkers on one side (fundie Christianity) to being fundamentalist, black and white, extremist thinkers on the other (fundie Jesus Mythers).

My caution would be that you've simply swung from one extreme to the other. I'd suggest giving up extreme black and white views of things. That would be a good start and a more cool-headed and objective position from which to examine the evidence dispassionately.

Because historical analysis driven by an agenda always ends up resulting in skewed and faulty conclusions.

Sheshbazzar

That point has been made previously, and has been taken, no need to further belabor the matter.
However, criticism of my alleged extremism does nothing to address the point of my statement;
I do not regard this statement as being extreme, but rather as a plain statement of fact.
The challenge is there for both believer or non-believer, for friend or foe, for Christian's or Atheist's. (or any other title desired)
If you want to dispute the truth of the above quoted statement, then you are invited to do so, otherwise.

reniaa

I would argue this statement what archaeology is available completely backs up the nt (pontious pilate stone, herod the great info, the sanhedrin leaders of the time, inc common practises between roman and jews at the time, even the consensus of jews at jesus's birth has been confirmed) unless you argue lack of evidence is proof which personally I find is a flawed viewpoint as archaeology isn't an exact science, but useful when using it against the bible, as what archaeology evidence is available does tend to back up both the ot and nt leaving skeptic's arguing the lack of proof arguement on remaining issues to make their points.

Antipope Innocent II

The key words there seem to be "of any significance". Personally, I think the evidence indicates that the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity has its origins in an apocalyptic preacher called Yeshua ben Yosef. The alternatives don't make a lot of sense and seem to be driven by ideological agendas. The attempts to make Yeshua into - in any sense - God the Son are flawed and are driven by an ideological agenda. The attempts to make him into some mythic pagan amalgam or non-terrestrial concept are likewise flawed and are driven by an ideological agenda.

Neither explain why this "Son of God" or this fictional/mythic/heavenly construct (i) looks so much like a guy everyone agreed existed and (ii) looks so much like an apocalyptic Jewish preacher.

Anyone who wants to explain the Jesus of the gospels needs to adequately explain his intrinsic apocalypcism. Any theory that doesn't, fails right there.

The first flaw with the idea he never existed you might want to ponder is why everyone - regardless of what else they thought about him - agreed he'd existed. That's the sucking hole at the heart of the JM idea.

No-one was a Jesus Myther until very, very recently. Which is odd, considering what a powerful argument the idea that he never existed would have been in the hands of Christianity's enemies.

Before you embrace the fundamentalism of the JM position you might want to ponder why no-one ever said he didn't exist back then. Strange, no? :huh:

Toto

Hi Antipope - you seem to have missed out on some recent discussions, the upshot of which was that is not so clear that the argument that Jesus never existed would have been an especially powerful argument against Christiantiy. There was some discussion about whether the ancients really thought in terms of non-existence, but that was not very conclusive.

And we have talked about your unsupported claims of an ideological agenda before. They do not add to your argument.

Sheshbazzar

It seems that some did, but that their views were not very popular. And then of course we have the "Christian church" hell bent on burning and banning everything and everyone that offered any resistance to their doctrines and dogmas.
I inserted the words "of any significance" into my earlier quote only to qualify it to make allowance for such actual historical figures such a John the Baptist, and James the Just. Foreseeing that some would attempt to dispute the claim on the basis of genuine historical individuals such as these. That John was a historical figure does nothing to prove that other, non-historical figures appearing within the NT narratives were real.

For what its worth, most of my 800+ posts on these forums have dealt extensively with strongly supporting that Yeshua-Yahshua line of baloney. (you are welcome to read as many of them as are still available)
Yet looking at it in a positive light, I can certainly sympathize with those nationalistic messianic Jews that first elevated the "Watchword" "The Help of Yah" ("Yah-hoshua" Yahshua, Yeshua, Y'shua) into a unifying and distinguishing battle cry in opposition to the impositions of pagan Hellenism upon their culture, their religion, and upon their speech. (see 2 Maccabees 13:9-14)
Today, if one is aware of these things, it can be well appreciated how Hellenism did successfully manage to take over, overwhelm and subdue those earliest of messianic believers, and in what manner of light that places stories of "Jesus Christ" and the words and actions of the subsequent "Christian church". Say SIBBOLETH or "Say SHIBBOLETH" but then most cannot percieve the difference. Nothing new under the sun there.