archibald

Toto, it's one thing for stringbean to get it wrong, but you?

Go back and read my posts. I have repeatedly been talking mainly and specifically about similar, minor characters. I happened to mention Alexander the Great only briefly (and incidentally have since conceded that I might have been wrong in any case), though I categorically never equated the two cases, and now somehow numerous other posts clarifying my general point go missing from people's memory. I repeat, I have categorically not moved any goalposts. It is very irritating to have that repeatedly put to me when it is demonstrably not true. I'm going to have to ask you to check what you have just asserted and withdraw it.

As for Tim O'Neill, unless you want to get into an ad hom about him, I don't understand why he's treated as if there's some hex on his comments. When I refer to what he said about standards of evidence from ancient history, I did so because he readily had numerous examples to back it up, not just because he said it.

More to the point, try answering the question yourself. Do me a list of Judeans of that time, and the evidence for them. I think you'll find a lot of people, even those cited by historians such as Josephus, are not on a list of 'have as much evidence as Jesus'. Even Carrier seems to understand that there is evidence for historians to take seriously. The whole point about lack of the type of evidence we should reasonably expect in the circumstances is guff, which circulates mainly on internet forums with mythicist leanings. And stringbean's specific assertion was particularly pointless and inaccurate.

archibald

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306547&page=16


There Toto, I checked for my fucking self. From my initial response to Stringbean, page 16.

You were saying, something about goalposts?

Wouldn't it make YOU cross to be repeatedly accused of something which wasn't true?

Stringbean

Stop your whining.

This is pointless. You got nothing! You have nothing! Crying about the fact you cannot produce :

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

Yeah all because a verse mentions some saviour that is obviously self fulfilling prophecy. HJers think that because christ or a jesus is mentioned that it verifies his existence. IT DON"T.

Some of you think that because you have some fancy degree hanging on the wall that it makes you right all the time. Well NEWFLASH! It don't! If I have accused you of something you did not do SORRY about that. But I have been on other forums where those with these fancy degrees think they can talk down to other members like they are some kind of trash. Don't cut it with me and I will tell you so!

So, I will publicly say that if I have agian accused you of something you did not do I APOLOGIZE!

But I will NOT be TALK DOWN to FANCY DEGREE or NOT! I am a Mythicists and DAMN proud of it and until someone can produce something thats considered hard evidence instead of hearsay I will continue this.

Have a nice frigging life.

Doug Shaver

Paul is the one who claimed to have had a revelation, not I.

As for what Paul could have meant by whatever he actually said, I can speculate as well as anybody else. What I won't do is treat my speculations as if they were evidence of anything aside from the powers of my imagination.

aa5874

Look, this is just a DIVERSION.

Now, it is EXPOSED that you have NOTHING but Ghost stories for HJ of Nazareth then all of a sudden you start to accuse people of making false statements.

You ADMIT you have NO actual evidence for what you claim about HJ of Nazareth.

It is NOT known that what you say is TRUE.

It is NOT known that HJ of Nazareth has an explanation.

Without actual evidence then there is NO KNOWN TRUTH to HJ of Nazareth.

Toto

Archibald - I am sorry if I have failed to keep your voluminous writings straight.

Tim O'Neill has not posted here in a while. There is no hex on his comments, but you cannot refer to some argument he made somewhere else as if he is an established authority. If you want to use his arguments, you have to link to them or reproduce them. There is nothing that he posted here that proved any point you are trying to make.

Try to find a character in history with "evidence" as flimsy and contradictory and full of legends as that for Jesus. You will find that the historical verdict is "maybe historical, maybe legendary." That is how many Buddhists treat the historical stories in their scriptures.

The problem is that there is a lack of the sort of evidence we would expect if Jesus resembled the gospel story, so historical Jesus proponents have redefined the real historical Jesus to be someone different, totally marginal and not worthy of attention, so that no evidence would really be expected.

andrewcriddle

Yes there is solid contemporary evidence for the very basic facts about Alexander the Great.

However, a surprising amount of what we think we know about Alexander, e.g. that he killed his comrade Cleitus the Black in a drunken quarrel, depends on much later sources.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It was not a supposed drunken quarrel that was used to show that Alexander the Great was a figure of history.

It is ALREADY known and established, even by the unlearned, that Alexander the Great is a well documented figure of history.

All we have of Jesus of the NT are Ghost stories so much so that "Paul" a supposed contemporary of Jesus BOASTED in his writings that Jesus was the FIRST BORN of the DEAD and that OVER 500 people can SUPPORT the DELIGHTFUL SIGHTING of the Resurrected after the THIRD day.

Colossians 1:18
1 Corinthians 15.3-8
It is WELL KNOWN and ESTABLISHED, even by the unlearned, that Jesus of the NT, the Child of the Ghost, has NO real history like Alexander the Great.

Even those in (drunken) quarrels may admit even If Jesus did exist we can ONLY assume he was possibly MALE everything else may lead to (DRUNKEN) quarrels.

maryhelena

archibald, the only sort of evidence that can settle the HJ/MJ debate is something 'solid', something tangible, like inscriptions on stone, coins. Written words are open to interpretation; written sources are open to interpolation.
Obviously, such evidence is not going to be forthcoming for the gospel JC - however much that figure is removed from all the mythological and theological elements. A carpenter crucified under Pilate, by the name of Jesus - that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It can't be done. If there was such a figure - then that figure is lost to history - and the JC historicists should abandon their futile searching and learn to live with their assumption of historicity.

An assumption which, of course, the mythicists are willing to challenge.....

However, the fact that the HJ camp cannot produce evidence to support their assumption of historicity for the gospel JC (however redefined...)does not give the 'game' to the mythicists. The mythicists have their own problems - the illogical idea that it's all from the mind, the vision, of 'Paul'. That is one very difficult idea to sell. Yes, ideas do sell - until the next grand vision comes along. Ideas have to relate to something tangible if they are to have any chance of a long life. The ideas of the early christians could never have got off the ground unless they were seen to have some relevance to the social/political environment - relevant to history. Relevant to real people, to historical figures. It's history we have to look at. Historical figures that could have been viewed as significant in some way or viewed as inspirational. Historical figures that have left evidence of their existence behind.

archibald - the gospel JC had no historical existence - but other figures that could have been relevant to the early christians did. The more likely explanation for christianity is that history mattered - that historical figures mattered.

tanya

Jesus was the annointed, not the messiah. Was it not common, a couple thousand years ago, for other Temple rabbis, who had also been annointed, to continue to follow the Law, after annointment, and undergo (daily?) ritual bathing exercises, akin to baptism? If John had been regarded (either in history, or in fiction) as a divinely empowered prophet, would it then not be entirely logical, rather than "odd", for all persons, including those who had been annointed, to undergo his baptism ceremony?