Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

This is not particularly a topic I feel comfortable delving too far into, but to respond to this:

You obviously think that the entirely expected lack of Roman records is a problem. But why ?

Well, billions of people follow this fella's teachings, there is an entire religion based on it, wars were fought in his name, people died for this fella. You'd think that maybe, just maybe, someone around his era (perhaps when they were writing the story) would have bothered to corroborate the story in the event he actually existed. I mean, he was seemingly an important figure very shortly after his death, if not during his lifetime. He isn't touted as some random nobody.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

So what you are saying is that he did not have a significant following very shortly after his death, the likes of whom would have been able or wanted to track down some sort of record of his existence?

{abe}
It would appear that individuals who are trying to start a new religion, who were writing a book about this fella, a book that is meant as an addition to the existing book, would find some sort of evidence corroborating his worth.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

You are seriously likening jesus to Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard? Sure, scientology and Mormonism are pretty big, but are they anywhere near the magnitude of xtianity?

We as skeptics are expected to buy into the fact that jesus was some random nobody in his day, warranting no record of his existence, yet he is the son of the most powerful being in all existence or god himself depending on which flavor xtian you ask.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

After all I'm not saying that Christianity is true...

How can you argue for a historical jesus and NOT think xtianity is true? IF jeebus existed in the context the bible paints him, xtianity IS the one trve religion and all that.

However, if the stories are based loosely on a bunch of different people or the jeebus guy didnt' do the alleged things the bible says, then it's all B.S.

Secondly: why is it that it is "acceptable" for religion to have excuses for the lack of evidence as the only evidence. This thread reeks of all the flood and exodus threads, wherein, the only "evidence" provided is why there is no evidence..... Not once in this thread has anyone pointed to anything and said "THIS is a piece of hard evidence for the existence of jeebus". Instead, we have apologetics saying (for example) "well, they didn't record all the executions in that time" or "jeebus had such a small following that there would be no contempoorary evidence for him". Name ONE other subject where you would accept these lines of reasoning as evidence.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Because Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Clearly.

Wat?

But that is not the historical Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is an entirely different point than the historical Jesus.

Sorry, not gonna cut it. Your religion is based on this jeebus fella, whose story is told in the bible and only the bible. If what your book says about this chap is untrue, where does that leave your religion? The base tenet of xtianity is "jesus saves if you ask him". Without jeebus, there IS no xtianity.

And no one is making excuses for religion.

I've yet to see ANY real evidence for a historical jesus, but I HAVE seen a whole lot of reasons why the alleged evidence is not there. And yet, this thread is still going.......

Because no such evidence exists; no one has suggested that such evidence does exist. We are all well aware of the circumstantial nature of the evidence.

Oh, sorry. I apologize. I thought you were arguing for the existence of an historical jesus.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Whose religion?

You've painted yourself (in my opinion at least) to be a christian. An odd christian, but a christian. Forgive me if I am wrong in saying so.

New Testament Apocrypha

Ahh, books that didn't make it into the bible. Right. Moving along now....

Who said it was untrue?

The fact that there is ZERO actual evidence for him and the fact that those of you who are claiming his historocity can only make excuses for why there is no contemporary evidence makes it untrue.

Huh? Of course not. I'm open to other possibilities; if only anyone would bother presenting some.

They have been presented. You just don't want to hear it.

We're not discussing the tenets of Christianity..

Don't be dim, Jon. That is not why I mentioned that. Try reading the context.

I doubt you even noticed it, but read literally this comment allows us to conclude that there was a Jesus since there is a Christianity.

Had I meant it literally, you'd be on to something.... except that you just said:

quote:

---

Because Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Clearly.

---

So what does xtianity have to do with jeebus?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Do you have an actual position to present?

Yes: that jesus is a fictitious character and christians are mindless idiots for lapping it up.

The argument from silence is an old ahistoricist PRATT.

Pardon me for being blunt, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Perhaps taking your own crack at filling in the blanks in Message 287 would help move the discussion along.

Or, perhaps, you (being on the side of arguing for this jeebus fella) could provide some, ya know, evidence for his existence? I haven't enjoyed mad libs since Jr. High School.

It's not hard, really. You are taking the position of "I believe this to be factual" and I don't believe you, what with not having provided any facts and all. Why is the onus on the non-believing crowd to prove you wrong? All it takes is something even minutely concrete and not heresay. I've read through this thread and followed it since it became active, hoping that someone of you jesus lovers would provide something indicative of some shred of evidence. You've all come up empty handed.

The FSM (praise be upon his meatballs) is real. Prove he's not. Oh wait, we actually have pictures and writings of our prophet.

Pastafarians: 1
Christians: 0

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Christian churches don't accept that Jesus was just another cult leader, no more divine than David Koresh or that he was a failed wanna-be Messiah. So how is arguing for that, arguing for Christianity?

But that's not what I asked, is it? If you are granting that jesus was just some dude and the bible is not telling an accurate depiction, then what is the point? That's just pointing to more proof that it's all a big fairy tale.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square