Who was Jesus

[Titan]

Improbable which verse on slavery are you referencing. Because I am pretty sure you are taking it out of context.

[DennisK]

I'm agnostic as to whether he existed or not.  Certainly, I believe nothing of his miraculous achievements with which he is credited.  I had always believed he did exist, even until recently.  I guess, until now, I didn't question his existence (probably due to my catholic indoctrination).

I agree whether he was real or not, it was a positive addition to the OT.  What I don't fully understand about theists (for the most part) is calling the bible holy and then cherry picking what suits them today.  How can you accept the bible as a whole and avoid touchy verses?  Is the NT used much like the Urim and Thummim (Joseph Smith's 'tools' to decipher his 'golden plates') to use as a filter for the bad stuff in the bible?  If it is the word of god, why edit?  If it isn't, why not edit and come up with a new edition with all happy stuff?  Sorry for the tangent.  I'm just confused.

[Titan]

Actually, Dennis there is a lot of evidence that he existed from ancient texts (excluding Biblical sources obviously), so that in itself isn't a difficult conclusion to reach. The more important question is "Who was he?"

As for cherry picking, all of the things evangelicals follow and don't follow have a pretty good foundation, based on verses about the Sabbath, slavery, sacrifice, sustenance and compassion ( I couldn't think up an "S" word for compassion, sadly).

[Whitney]

Other.  I don't know if there was a guy named Jesus who inspired people to write the Biblical stories or not.  During that time period there were a lot of self proclaimed messiahs walking around.  I simply haven't come across any historical evidence which points to there being a man behind the Jesus story...everything written about him does not date back to when he was claimed to exist.  There are, however, a lot of simularities between the Jesus story and stories in pagan religions.

[Asmodean]

Other. I don't know who or what the Christian Jesus was, but I'm pretty sure of what he was NOT.

[Titan]

Well, there is a lot of evidence that someone important named Jesus existed, who he was is a different issue:

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120): "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of their name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated but throughout the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)

Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist): "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113

Flavius Julius (AD 37?-101?): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure - Questionable authenticity on this statement]. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Flavius Julius (AD 37?-101?): ""Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Depends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

No, it does not depend on which came first. You have to not only take into account geographical barriers to any possible correlation but you also have to understand the progression of mythological ideas from true events and the divergence of oral recounts and written texts.

Er ... yes it does!!!!! We are talking about religions in the same area that pre-existed Christianity so a very strong case can be made supporting the idea that the bible borrowed various legends from other gnostic religions of the time.

OK, let's deal with your supposed evidence that your Christ existed.

First of all a piece by Frank R. Zindler ... I seem to recall Zindler was a science fiction writer at one point but not sure on that, doesn't matter anyway

Additionally, depending on who is debating, Christians try to cite eyewitness, documentary, corroborative, scientific, identity/psychological/profile, fingerprint, medical, resurrection & circumstantial evidence in support of the claimed existence of their saviour.

Eyewitness Evidence
The fact is that there were no direct eye-witnesses ... all accounts of Jesus Christ's life were from AFTER the time he was alive (I'd be pleased to hear if you know any different) and there is no way of validating exactly when they were written, who they were written by or if they have been subsequently tampered with.

Documentary Evidence
The only documentary evidence that is reliable in cases such as this is that of known historians.

Some scholars believe that the writings of Tacitus WRT Christianity may be a Christian interpolation into the text but this is not at all certain and, unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists. It appears more likely that Tacitus was just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus and, if so, his words merely confirm that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of biblical claims (specifically the claimed existence of Jesus). If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are, however, good reasons to doubt that Tacitus was working from Roman records as he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator and he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos" and Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians.

John E. Remsberg, in his book "The Christ", CH2, "Silence of Contemporary Writers") goes on to say:

Apparently the sentence "The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate" found in the works of Tacitus is one of the most significant "evidences" for the existence of Jesus Christ however Remsburg makes a number of points as to why the statement must be considered unsafe:

1.   It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2.   Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus and his arguments would have demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3.   Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus were not among them
4.   Origen, in his arguments with Celsus, would have used it had it existed.
5.   The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6.   It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7.   At this time but one copy of the Annals existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eight centuryâ€"600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8.   As this single copy was in possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery would have been easy.
9.   Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10.   It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11.   The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12.   In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13.   Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14.   At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Remsburg further makes the point (and this is the one I am most interested in) that the passage in question is an interpolation, that the sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery because it interrupts the narrative and disconnects two closely related statements. Apparently if you eliminate the sentence there ceases to be a break in the narrative.

Of course, the most frequently cited text is that of Josephus (and I think the Flavius you mention is the same person) whose work is considered to be fairly good (actually superb in that his writings have been compared to the works of the Greek writer Herodotus). Those who believe in the existence of Jesus Christ like to quote him as being a first century direct witness but there's a problem (apart from the fact that he was born AFTER Jesus Christ is supposed to have died) ... men like Herodotus and Josephus wrote extremely well in terms of style & content (a huge part of the reason why they are considered so credible) but the writings of Josephus that refer to Jesus Christ are considered by many historians to be false (a later interpolation). They simply do not fit with the known style & normal kind of content of the writer and they are introduced in places in his work where they simply should not be. According to one historian Josephus' writings are like reading "War & Peace" by Tolstoy and then all of a sudden it starts talking about Jesus Christ like something out of a "Wish You Were Here" TV holiday guide!

Lucian was, in all likelihood, a quack ... he mentions the famous healing powers of a statue of Polydamas, an athlete, at Olympia, as well as the statue of Theagenes at Thasos (Council of the Gods 12). Is he really one of your most credible references?

Corroborating Evidence
There is none that can be definitively attributed to a genuine living Jesus Christ.

Scientific Evidence
What scientific evidence? Even if the bible were historically accurate (it isn't) it isn't the background history about which we are largely sceptical but the character-based claims i.e. what the people within supposedly did! There is no definitive historical Jesus ... his claimed existence has yet to be established beyond reasonable objective doubt. There is no scientific support for the essential claims made with the Christian bible.

Identity/Psychological/Profile Evidence
So Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of "God". I suspect many, many people have thought exactly the same and they have a place for people like that, it's called a psychiatric hospital! Do I need to say more?

Resurrection/Absent Bodies/Post Fatal Appearance Evidence
There simply is no validatable evidence to support these claims and since they haven't actually found the tomb yet (yes they've found a tomb but no one can say for certain it is THE tomb). Furthermore a recent find of an ancient bible doesn't mention any resurrection the implication of which is that that claimed event is a relatively recent addition to biblical scripture.

Circumstantial Evidence
Ultimately, as one might expect of an adherent of science, I'm a sceptic, I'm not a theist (which necessarily involves a degree of acceptance with evidence) and I don't make my mind up in the absence of evidence instead I assume things are NOT proven until specific verifiable evidence is provided so no, I won't jump to conclusions but neither will I assume that scrolls or any other scriptural material prove any of the essential biblical claims to be true until such time as you or someone else demonstrates that to be so :-)
 
"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Kyu

[MariaEvri]

ok heres my opinion
up until recently (that is about a year and a half ago) I believed that jesus existed, and even though he was just a normal man, he was a good teacher. But then I started searching online and I found many artices taht said that except from the holy books (which I believe were written after he died?) there are no other historical documents written during his life (or even after) that speak about jesus.
so I voted that he disn't exist

[DennisK]

The reason that Jesus' life cannot be verified is god's will -faith.  If we are given proof of anything, it will surely be a faith buster.  Amen.

[karakara]

Well,

At least on this ocassion, I have to side with Kyu -- Sikh scholars have also poured over so-called evidence, and much comes down to whether  the Flavius Josephus' account of 'Christ' is verifiable.. as is most of his work, what his influences were to mention 'Christ/Christus',  or whether he actually penned anything about Christ at all. The evidence just doesn't exist, and I believe from what I've read, there's more circumstantial evidence to believe that using Flavius Josephus as a source for an Historical Jesus just can't be relied on. It's more likely than not that  one or more accounts of an historical Christ to Flavius Josephus were attributed to him after his death, and this done by early Christian scribes.

If you remove Flavius Josephus from the list of historical sources which supposedly corroborate the historicity of Jesus, then you really have nothing, unless you consider The New Testament as 'historical sources', which most objective biblical scholars do not.. but Christians do!

So as time goes forward, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that the story of Christ is a contrived,a fabrication, and that his 'life' is a work of fiction, grows, and what we used to consider rock-solid evidence for his life, has truly disintegrated. I believe this will present a crisis for Christianity at large in the future, as public awareness of such theories and scholarly opinions becomes common.

For me personally, on the one hand my faith teaches me to respect Christians. On the other hand, what we'd call the Sikh Prime Directive: The Pursuit of Truth above all else, demands that I also look at the evidence. In any event, there are over 2 billion Christians on earth, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon -- this issues will affect us all, not just Christians.

[Titan]

Er ... yes it does!!!!! We are talking about religions in the same area that pre-existed Christianity so a very strong case can be made supporting the idea that the bible borrowed various legends from other gnostic religions of the time.

Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (note: I presume this to be Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

You realize of course that the early Christians were outnumbered 30,000 to one? To many outsiders his death, for the most part, would have seemed as just another Roman crucifixion and wouldn't have warranted attention UNTIL the followers began to spread their doctrine further and wider.

The fact is that there were no direct eye-witnesses ... all accounts of Jesus Christ's life were from AFTER the time he was alive (I'd be pleased to hear if you know any different) and there is no way of validating exactly when they were written, who they were written by or if they have been subsequently tampered with.

Of course they were accounts after Christ's life. Christ died at a relatively early age. His crucifixion, and claimed resurrection, is what made the news spread so widely. At first it would have appeared as though this was nothing important. No one on the outside would have HAD a reason to write about it. Wait, how would you be able to prove that something wasn't tampered with? You can only prove the affirmative, not the negative. The challenge, therefore, is rather irrational.

Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

What scientific evidence? Even if the bible were historically accurate (it isn't) it isn't the background history about which we are largely sceptical but the character-based claims i.e. what the people within supposedly did! There is no definitive historical Jesus ... his claimed existence has yet to be established beyond reasonable objective doubt. There is no scientific support for the essential claims made with the Christian bible.

Which claims need scientific support? If you are suggesting that the miracles need to be supported by science then we need to talk.

So Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of "God". I suspect many, many people have thought exactly the same and they have a place for people like that, it's called a psychiatric hospital! Do I need to say more?

Yes, but if someone came up to me and claimed he was wealthy I would want to see the evidence. Not just reply "Lots of people claim to be wealthy, you must be a liar too."

There simply is no validatable evidence to support these claims and since they haven't actually found the tomb yet (yes they've found a tomb but no one can say for certain it is THE tomb). Furthermore a recent find of an ancient bible doesn't mention any resurrection the implication of which is that that claimed event is a relatively recent addition to biblical scripture.

According to the dates that the gospels were written in, people could have simply asked which grave it was and gone there to find out. The gospels are dated very early after Christ's death and as such the letters would have presented a challenge that anyone could have refuted. No such refutation exists.

Question: How did Christianity start? Some people got together and said: "You know, we can pretend that we met a guy...we'll call him Jesus"

There are, however, good reasons to doubt that Tacitus was working from Roman records as he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator and he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos" and Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians.

If the massive amounts of followers were referring to him as Christos then it is more likely that the author would give a reference that is currently understood. By calling him by a name people aren't aware of you essentially make your texts useless. Tacitus writings that Pilate was a procurator is probably due to the fact that the title was changed after 44 A.D. and therefore Tacitus may not have been aware of the switch.

"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Also, please realize that when looking at a religious doctrine you can't simply rule it out from an atheistic perspective. Of course miracles aren't possible in science, that is why we call them miracles and not "natural sort of stuff."


Finally, if Paul's journey to Rome wasn't until around 60 A.D. as is commonly theorized then these writers would be ruled out as having lived at the wrong era.
Seneca the Elder (died 39 A.D.)
Pliny the Elder (um you realize that he wasn't a historian right...his writings are on medicine, plants and plant products (e.g., wine), agriculture, architecture, sculpture, geology and mineralogy.)
Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (A.D. 86 - after 146) How is this one legitimate from your vantage point? If he has mentioned Jesus you would have said it was tampered with and/or too far after the event.
Petronius (A.D. 27â€"66) Again, 6 years to write about an event of one man making a small influence in Rome? Not likely.
Dion Pruseus I can't find anything on this man and therefore can't verify anything about him.
Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC - c. AD 31) Again, before the date

Okay, hopefully you are seeing a pattern here. How about you give me the names here that would have actually written about him because they were in some way or another historians or sociologists around the area at the time.

The evidence just doesn't exist, and I believe from what I've read, there's more circumstantial evidence to believe that using Flavius Josephus as a source for an Historical Jesus just can't be relied on. It's more likely than not that one or more accounts of an historical Christ to Flavius Josephus were attributed to him after his death, and this done by early Christian scribes.

Okay, hypothetical guys, if they had added Christ into Josephus' work, why on earth didn't they add him to all the writings of everyone else? That is where your logic comes to a crashing halt.

[karakara]

Other.  I don't know if there was a guy named Jesus who inspired people to write the Biblical stories or not.  During that time period there were a lot of self proclaimed messiahs walking around.  I simply haven't come across any historical evidence which points to there being a man behind the Jesus story...everything written about him does not date back to when he was claimed to exist.  There are, however, a lot of simularities between the Jesus story and stories in pagan religions.

There is certainly no historical 'evidence' that would hold up in court today, nor to objective scrutiny .. .none of which matters to those to whom belief in Jesus is a matter of Faith, no disrespect , Sam Harris ;-) Doesn't really matter to me either, as to me it's the philosophy of Christianity, not the historicity, that matters.

When looking at any religion, of any era, I think it's important to have at least done some homework as to the history, culture, influences of the times that the religion was germinating, and subsequent stages.. I don't think Christianity can be understood without having a firm grasp of the mythological concepts of Savior Gods and Greek Mystery Cults.. remember, New Testament was written by educated Greeks, in Greek.. we have not a shred of evidence of an Historical Jesus. There seem to be far too many similarities in the mythic legends and descriptions of ancient Savior Gods and Jesus Christ, for this simply to be coincidence (i.e., virgin births, walking on water, miracles, powerful king or other figure attempts to kill him as a child, died a sacrificial death, etc.). Just google it..

And yes, around 2000 years ago, if Jesus Christ was an historical figure, he would probably have been considered by both locals and authorities as just another crazy leader of an apocalyptic cult.

No disrespect intended.. where truth lies, we must follow.

As

[karakara]

Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

This is quite the misconception friend. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the works of the great American Professor of Mythology and author, Joseph Campbell.

His basic theory is that from Shamanism to the most organized of today's 'religions', it all comes from the human psyche and our dreams. He was  a big fan of Carl Jung, who proposed that humans are born with pre-programmed memories (genetic memory?),  which he called 'Jungian Archetypes'  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes   , pls. Google the concept, it's truly fascinating.. having been a student of Psychology and a big fan of mythology for years, this is extremely interesting.

Well, from our 'dreams', we formulate our Myths. From our Myths, we formulate the substance of our religions. When we talk about myths and savior Gods, this is perfectly in accord with what Campbell and Jung were saying.

As Joseph Campbell said:

"Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths."

A lifetime of the intense study of mythology and religion by Joseph Campbell can be distilled into that thought.  I highly recommend this book:

 The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion

to understand what Campbell was saying about how religion is spawned of myth, and myth of dreams.



Mythology is in almost every case a manifestation of truths and reality, and has everything to do with both.. I'm talking about classic mythologies.. not something some paperback scifi/fantasy writer whips up for publication.


The purpose of recording and retelling myths and mythology is often to more clearly and vividly communicate universal truths , for educational and inspirational purposed, than we can see in our real lives.  Mythology is one of the greatest tools for the interpretation of dreams, of the collective psyche (Jung called it 'collective unconscious) of a people, and for the expression of truths..

J.R.R. Tolkien himself, the most famous 'mythologist' of the 20th century, flatly said that all of his Middle Earth writings were direct revelation by God... yup, and Tolkien would expound of how he believed most 'myths' were inspired by God to communicate important truths. For the best book on this subject, I HIGHLY recommend:  

J. R. R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth (Paperback)
by Bradley J. Birzer

You will see Tolkien in a new light, guaranteed.



No friend, I must disagree with you in that you don't seem to understand the purpose of mythology at all, and your love for you faith aside, I can't seriously accept your assertion that Christianity alone appears have no mythological base -- when if you just look at how Jesus is described, it's nearly verbatim from myths of Savior Gods and Greek Mystery Cult legends.

I encourage you to take a look at any of the courses on The New Testament by Professor Bart Ehrman
http://bartdehrman.com/
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescL ... c=Religion

And learn how to truly understand the genesis and role of myth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

In particular, his PBS series with Bill Moyer: The Power of Myth

and 'Mythos'

are available on DVD and are tremendously entertaining and educational.

I encourage everyone to study Comparative Religion in order to get a better understanding of their own religion.. and to look extremely critically at your own faith.  My favorite quote of all time about religion is by.. .none other that Buddha himself:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha

If there is merit in your faith, and of course there is, then a critical examination and your own intellectual honestly will likely lead you to reconceptualize your own faith.. in a new light. I don't see how, no matter what scrutiny and evidence bears out, you will lose faith. You might simply become more of a critical thinker and cease to parrot dogma. Question everything.

Sat Nam

[Kyuuketsuki]

Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

Not only was that NOT true of many of the Gnostic religions of the time but that just smacks of "my religion is better than yours (whether dead or alive)" which really isn't something you can justify especially amongst a bunch of rationalists.

You realize of course that the early Christians were outnumbered 30,000 to one? To many outsiders his death, for the most part, would have seemed as just another Roman crucifixion and wouldn't have warranted attention UNTIL the followers began to spread their doctrine further and wider.

So what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Of course they were accounts after Christ's life. Christ died at a relatively early age. His crucifixion, and claimed resurrection, is what made the news spread so widely. At first it would have appeared as though this was nothing important. No one on the outside would have HAD a reason to write about it. Wait, how would you be able to prove that something wasn't tampered with? You can only prove the affirmative, not the negative. The challenge, therefore, is rather irrational.

Again so what (see above)?

Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

I'm not arguing for or against the Trojan Wars, I am arguing against the existence of a literal Jesus. And for the record I am not arguing for or against the existence of any other historical figure ... I accept all of those tacitly in part because I don't give a damn whether they did or did not exist whether such events did or did not happen! As it happens I care a great deal about whether there was or was a Jesus Christ and whether the essential claims of Christianity (in particular) are true or not.

Which claims need scientific support? If you are suggesting that the miracles need to be supported by science then we need to talk.

That's indeed what I am arguing; anything, anything at all, leaves a trail of evidence, I don't care if it was done by humans or by a god, there will be evidence ... if there is evidence it can be examined.

Ys, but if someone came up to me and claimed he was wealthy I would want to see the evidence. Not just reply "Lots of people claim to be wealthy, you must be a liar too."

If someone told me they were wealthy, I'd say good for you ... I genuinely wouldn't care over much. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

According to the dates that the gospels were written in, people could have simply asked which grave it was and gone there to find out. The gospels are dated very early after Christ's death and as such the letters would have presented a challenge that anyone could have refuted. No such refutation exists.

What can I say? Can you prove the tomb found is actually the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's going to be difficult because you have yet to prove the existence of said Christ

As for the bible, yes I know they are CLAIMED to be shortly after Jesus Christ's death but they don't actually date back that far do they? The oldest bible currently in existence is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Question: How did Christianity start? Some people got together and said: "You know, we can pretend that we met a guy...we'll call him Jesus"

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

If the massive amounts of followers were referring to him as Christos then it is more likely that the author would give a reference that is currently understood. By calling him by a name people aren't aware of you essentially make your texts useless. Tacitus writings that Pilate was a procurator is probably due to the fact that the title was changed after 44 A.D. and therefore Tacitus may not have been aware of the switch.

In other words he was a shoddy and careless writer (unlike Josephus and Herodotus)? Not very convincing evidence is it?

Also, please realize that when looking at a religious doctrine you can't simply rule it out from an atheistic perspective. Of course miracles aren't possible in science, that is why we call them miracles and not "natural sort of stuff."

No but I can ridicule it from a mythical comparison perspective which is exactly what it deserves and again I refer you to the fact that any event leaves a trail of evidence.

Finally, if Paul's journey to Rome wasn't until around 60 A.D. as is commonly theorized then these writers would be ruled out as having lived at the wrong era.

Who's claiming Paul was the only route for information to Rome, I'm certainly not.
 

Seneca the Elder (died 39 A.D.)

Well within scope time-wise.

Pliny the Elder (um you realize that he wasn't a historian right...his writings are on medicine, plants and plant products (e.g., wine), agriculture, architecture, sculpture, geology and mineralogy.)

Maybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous Jesus Christ.

Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (A.D. 86 - after 146) How is this one legitimate from your vantage point? If he has mentioned Jesus you would have said it was tampered with and/or too far after the event.

I wasn't aware I’d mentioned him.

Petronius (A.D. 27â€"66) Again, 6 years to write about an event of one man making a small influence in Rome? Not likely.

Petronius is notable only because one of his works ridicules the idea of resurrection well before any of the known gospels were written (and is believed to have derived from a subject & style of satire much, much older).

Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC - c. AD 31) Again, before the date

For the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

Okay, hopefully you are seeing a pattern here. How about you give me the names here that would have actually written about him because they were in some way or another historians or sociologists around the area at the time.

Sorry? You want me to do your job for you? Thank you but no ... I gave you a piece by Remsberg (referenced by Zindler) which listed 40 plus names and of which you criticised maybe 6 that leaves you 30 plus to deal with.

Okay, hypothetical guys, if they had added Christ into Josephus' work, why on earth didn't they add him to all the writings of everyone else? That is where your logic comes to a crashing halt.

Yet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Kyu

[karakara]

Yet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Kyu

Silly beliefs? Seems, Kyu, you won't even entertain the possibility or extend the courtesy of meeting people even part way, never mind half-way. So now, friend, exactly what 'beliefs' are you talking about when you accuse Christians of 'silly beliefs'.. the entire dogma, an indictment of the entire faith?? Or selected aspects of Christianity which to outsiders do seem to stretch the limits of credulity... but to the 'believer', are plausible?

So, why don't you defend your assertion.. just get to the point, and pls. don't evade the question.

Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.