Zeichman

Most of what I skimmed seemed to be pretty straw-manny.
This, for example:
"Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity."

...misses the point. The accounts in the gospels were probably written within four to seven decades of the events alleged, which are placed in concrete historical context. There is no evidence presented that this could be said of Hercules, too. Most of the quotes at the end seem to be irrelevant to ahistoricity or are so far removed from context that I doubt they mean what is implied.

aa5874

There is no concrete historical context for the Jesus in the NT, son of Mary and the Holy Ghost. None whatsoever.

Soul Invictus

Well get that work done! We'll just have to wait til you have time.

spamandham

I think the conclusion is basically true, even though what he says at this link has been pretty muched rehashed ad infinitum, and does little to disprove a historical Jesus. I think what he may be overlooking, is that most people - even nonchristians - are starting with the assumption Jesus was a historical person (although most non-Christians and even some Christians reject the magical aspects). So it isn't enough to say "there is no credible evidence he existed", since most people would be expecting positive evidence he didn't exist.

The facts he seems to have missed/underemphasized, that actually do act as positive evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus (as opposed to merely negating positive evidence for the existence of Jesus), are:

- Paul's Jesus is described as a spiritual being, and never described in any terms as an earthly being, except when he is claimed to have been born of a virgin. We could discuss the authenticiy of that verse, or whether it has symbolic meaning, but I don't see how a single passage depicting Jesus as possibly human overcomes the dozens of passages indicating he is a spiritual being. Mr. Walker sort of touches on this in the paragraph "THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?", but not to a significant enough degree, IMHO.

- The passion of Mark reads like it was directly composed from Isaiah 23 and Psalm 22. This strongly indicates a work of actual fiction rather than the chaotic result of mythmaking. Other stories also seem to be political commentaries (see the Jewrasic Pork thread for example). It is reasonable to conclude the entire work is a compilation of parables and symbolic stories, with Jesus as the main character (a literary device, not a historical person), with later redactions and interpolations.

Chris Weimer

Aren't you starting with assumptions as well? Aren't you starting with the assumption that this is not a grand conspiracy? Your thinking is essentially that of a conspiracy theorist - let's throw out all assumed traditions (although really you're only throwing out what you don't like) and start anew from the "evidence". But this evidence will conveniently not include Christian testimony in any form. How presumptuous of you.

spamandham

No, a grand conspiracy is not one of my assumptions.

Well if that's your standard to qualify as a conspiracy theorist, then by your standard that's what I am, regardless of the fact I am not assuming any kind of conspiracy.

By the way, conspiracies do actually happen. If that's what the evidence indicated, then I would be a conspiracy theorist by ordinary standards as well, rather than simply by your contrived standards.

3DJay

There is no contemporary Christian testimony to exlude.


Peace

Roller

Who?

Chris Weimer

Paul?

Chris Weimer

But you're not starting from the evidence. You're only starting by what you think the evidence is. You've ruined history for what? So you can attack some 1st century Jew?