Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Your post makes no logical sense.

You don't seem to realize that you have actually admitted that you have a total lack of comprehension.

You may require a course in logic.

You have not answered any questions put to you.

You have not defended your idiotic "Theory".

You certainly haven't demonstrated any ability with logic.

I am baffled as to why you would think you are in a position to offer anyone advice on their debating tactics.

 

[eight bits]

max

Unlike the classic Christ Mythers we have a real world example of how their theory could be valid: John Frum.

So, who's "we" and who's "they"? Are you saying that you accept the hypothesis of one or more "classic" Christ mythers, but that you have more evidence for "their" view than they had?

It would be helpful if you laid out which classic Christ Myth hypothesis you hold, and what specific features of early Christianity you feel the John Frum movement exemplifies. For which of those features did earlier Christ Mythers lack real-world examples, in your view?

Meanwhile, you seem unable to identify a Frummish parallel to Saint Paul. That's no surprise. Unlike Christianity, the John Frum movement has few (to be charitable) adherents outside its home culture. Are there any other differences between the John Frum movement and early Christianity whose acknowledgment would help us undersatnd what you think John Frum is an example of, other examples of which were unavailable to your predecessors?

 

[David Mo]

But one of the Christ myths points to Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus c100 BCE as the origin for Jesus and he (not the Romans) crucified 800 rebels. Visions and dreams make connections that in many times don't make sense in retrospect and given Paul is going on about a vision as "divine truth" we are getting that in spades.

Besides Paul effectively says the Romans (or at least the leaders of the Empire) crucified Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:8.

Remember that Paul wrote in a time where the Empire was having Crazy Ruler syndrome. Followed by can we find a ruler who lasts at least a year? Well they say third time...argh not again .

Crucifixion was considered a Roman punishment in Palestine in the period between Herod the Great and the fall of Jerusalem and Massada. Paul necessarily knew this.
Paul could have any mental disease, but he vas very clever in arguing.

Be careful with your head. You needn't to take this things so seriously and the PC can finish badly.

 

[David Mo]

David


Or, closer to the time, during Spatacus' rebellion, the Romans crucified some slaves they had captured, in view of Spatacus' forces. Then as now, the uses of war are that prisoners are treated reciprocally, and so Spartacus crucified some of his Roman prisoners. Yes or no, David, did the Romans view their crucified comrades to have died dishinorably?

Of course. Spartacus also forced two Roman generals to fight naked as gladiators did. These were ways to humiliating the Romans. Similar to Caudine forks.

As opposed to whom? What human community lacks mythology, in your view?

And BTW, "the repugnant death of the Christ" was seamlessly integrated into the Wotan myths (I believe that the incident was copied from the Christian myth, but it is all the same for seamlessness if it wasn't). Wotan had already plucked out one of his eyes for wisdom's sake. Repugnant and god are often found in the same story together. You need to get out more.

I don’t think it has never existed a community without myths. If I had suggested this then I was expressing incorrectly my idea.

When I was speaking of “repugnant” or “dishonourable” death I was speaking about a death at odds with the hierarchy or the high status accorded to a God as Supreme Good. I don’t know well the German mythology but I think the Wotan act is rather gore but not dishonourable. And the Christian influences are far from negligible in this debate.

NOTA BENE: In polytheism or dualism some vulgar features can be assigned to lower or malign deities. And we shouldn't forget the Olympic laughter. But remember that nobody laughs at Zeus, the Supreme God of Gods.

 

[maximara]

max


So, who's "we" and who's "they"? Are you saying that you accept the hypothesis of one or more "classic" Christ mythers, but that you have more evidence for "their" view than they had?

It would be helpful if you laid out which classic Christ Myth hypothesis you hold, and what specific features of early Christianity you feel the John Frum movement exemplifies. For which of those features did earlier Christ Mythers lack real-world examples, in your view?

Well look at what Drews, Robertson, and Remsburg were really saying:

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Later Resmburg clarifies the problem "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)

"(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels. (...) The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?)

And this idea is not relegated to the long ago past either:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

In short they are all arguing that other then the name there was nothing to connect the Jesus in the Gospel stories to an actual proposed flesh and blood Jesus.

Meanwhile, you seem unable to identify a Frummish parallel to Saint Paul. That's no surprise. Unlike Christianity, the John Frum movement has few (to be charitable) adherents outside its home culture.

It could be argued that Manehivi (1940-41) was the John Frum's Paul taking based on the 1947 latter a vague concept held by various groups in secret since the 1910s and galvanizing it into relatively cohesive movement. Of course since Manehivi was illiterate that is about as far as one can go with that comparison. Historical anthropology doesn't look for one to one comparisons anymore then anthropology does; it rather looks for reasonable parallels.

Considering they are on an island of 12,189 square miles total that is no surprise that their cult hasn't gone past the local community.

 

[David Mo]

David(…)
... in the same scripture Paul also found all sorts of passages talking about someone being "hung on a tree", being "pierced hand and foot" being "rejected and passing misunderstood and unappreciated by his own Jewish people". You most definitely can find those passages in various books of the OT. They are there. And that is, afaik, and indisputable fact(…)

It's a fact that the passages are there in the OT. Your only objection, which is a very weak one indeed, is that Paul was wrong if he thought these passages actually referred to a messiah. The point is that Paul DID think their true "hidden" meaning was describing a messiah that God was "pleased to reveal" to him, and his letters say exactly that, very explicitly and repeatedly.

Are you sure? This passage is quoted by first time by Justine Martyr (middle of the second Century). See here: http://vridar.org/?s=pierced+my+hands .
If I had suggested the contrary in this forum I apologise. I suspected that there was something no clear and I have confirmed it.

That’s why we know that Paul assigns to Scriptures “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” and “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”. (1 Cor. 15:3–8). No mention of the cross here and no quotes of biblical passages that had suggested his interpretation of the crucifixion of the Lord. This reinforces my presumption that Paul has other sources that the Bible and revelations. Perhaps you can provide us with a Pauline passage where we can identify his biblical source of crucifixion. The epistle to Corinthians is not the case.

 

[IanS]

I agree with you. I think that is indeed what Paul is claiming. But IanS thinks very differently.

No, I don't think very differently. And neither does dejudge (or I expect any sceptics here, or probably anywhere else either).

What I have said to you is; Paul claimed to have arrived at his Jesus beliefs from his visions, his communications with God in heaven, and all according to what he thought was the true meaning of scripture revealed to him through the power of God.

And we have been many times before through the likely origins of the Last Supper story.

Your problem, and the problem for everyone on the HJ side, inc. rather amazingly, all the well known Bible Scholars who claim to have found that Jesus "certainly" lived, is that despite all these many hundreds of pages and literally thousands of posts, you still have absolutely no reliable or credible evidence of his existence whatsoever. Zero, nothing at all.

You cant point to a single person ever writing to credibly claim that they had actually known Jesus, and could therefore provide anything other than uncorroborated un-evidenced hearsay of ancient religious messiah beliefs, which the Jewish people had in any case believed as legend since at least 500BC if not 1000BC and the time of Moses.

Jesus might have existed. But there is actually no genuine evidence of it. And there is, in fact, a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Brainache]

No, I don't think very differently. And neither does dejudge (or I expect any sceptics here, or probably anywhere else either).

What I have said to you is; Paul claimed to have arrived at his Jesus beliefs from his visions, his communications with God in heaven, and all according to what he thought was the true meaning of scripture revealed to him through the power of God.

And we have been many times before through the likely origins of the Last Supper story.

Your problem, and the problem for everyone on the HJ side, inc. rather amazingly, all the well known Bible Scholars who claim to have found that Jesus "certainly" lived, is that despite all these many hundreds of pages and literally thousands of posts, you still have absolutely no reliable or credible evidence of his existence whatsoever. Zero, nothing at all.

You cant point to a single person ever writing to credibly claim that they had actually known Jesus, and could therefore provide anything other than uncorroborated un-evidenced hearsay of ancient religious messiah beliefs, which the Jewish people had in any case believed as legend since at least 500BC if not 1000BC and the time of Moses.

Jesus might have existed. But there is actually no genuine evidence of it. And there is, in fact, a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

This is an admission that you don't understand the study of Ancient History.

You should fix that.

 

[zugzwang]

This is an admission that you don't understand the study of Ancient History.

You should fix that.

I've just assumed that both IanS and dejudge are explicitly dismissing historical method, particularly in relation to ancient history, and using their own methods, however one defines them. This is OK, but it makes discussion a little odd, since people are really talking past each other.

 

[Brainache]

I've just assumed that both IanS and dejudge are explicitly dismissing historical method, particularly in relation to ancient history, and using their own methods, however one defines them. This is OK, but it makes discussion a little odd, since people are really talking past each other.

It is also odd when all the other Ancient History that they don't seem to have a problem with, is arrived at using the same methods on similar sorts of material.

They really do seem to think Jesus is special.

Weird.

 

[Belz...]

You have reliable credible evidence that these people were personal companions of Jesus?

More to the point, does he have awesome evidence ?

 

[Craig B]

It could be argued that Manehivi (1940-41) was the John Frum's Paul taking based on the 1947 latter a vague concept held by various groups in secret since the 1910s and galvanizing it into relatively cohesive movement. Of course since Manehivi was illiterate that is about as far as one can go with that comparison. Historical anthropology doesn't look for one to one comparisons anymore then anthropology does; it rather looks for reasonable parallels.

Considering they are on an island of 12,189 square miles total that is no surprise that their cult hasn't gone past the local community.

Yes. I wonder how good a parallel the Frum cult is, in considering the origin of Christianity; although it is interesting, and attractive to certain Mythicists impressed by the probable historical non-existence of its named messianic figure, recent though the cult's origin is, and notwithstanding that it has been studied by Western scholars since almost its earliest days.

But one huge difference is, that the Melanesian culture in which it was born had no longstanding traditions of circulating religious ideas in writing. Nor was the Frum cult widespread, as you note. So it probably neither had nor required a "Paul".

 

[eight bits]

David

Of course. Spartacus also forced two Roman generals to fight naked as gladiators did. These were ways to humiliating the Romans. Similar to Caudine forks.

What has this to do with the question you were asked? Let me repeat the inquiry:

Yes or no, David, did the Romans view their crucified comrades to have died dishinorably? Assuming not, how did they reach this conclusion except by weighing why the men died, who killed them, and who the men were in life?

The responsive answer is one selected from among::

- Yes, with whatever explanation you care to add.
- No, with an explanation of the survivng Romans' thought process as you see it, plus whatever else you care to add.
- I prefer not to answer your question at this time, with whatever explantaion you care to add.

Back over to you.

(On a matter arising with another poster, when Paul says that "he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” Paul is alluding to Hosea 6: 1-2. Paul, like every other human being, does have another source besides his experiences, weird or wordly, namely, his cognitive ability to synthesize information. He need not read anywhere, or be told by anybody else that "Hosea 6: 1-2 refers to Jesus' death." Paul may come to that conclusion based on his own thinking about the passage. Preceding material in Hosea has God promising lurid violence for "sins," followed by 6:2's "resurrection" after repentance.)

max

I still do not grasp what aspect of these hypotheses lacked a "real-world example" until John Frum became better known among historians of early Christianity. Anyway,

In short they are all arguing that other then the name there was nothing to connect the Jesus in the Gospel stories to an actual proposed flesh and blood Jesus.

In the typical historical Jesus hypothesis, what connects a flesh-and-blood Jesus to the writers of the capital-G Gospels is some surviving homeland-dwelling Jewish disciples of Jesus, who interact with Paul, who converts Gentiles living outside the Jewish homeland, who become the first readers of the evangelists, who write the "Jesus in the Gospel stories" for those readers.

So, is denial of that chain the nub of it? Would that imply that your hypothesis may fairly be restated as the disjunctive:

Paul met some people who made up a ghost story which Paul later experienced himself OR
Paul made up his ghost story, at least the part about other people seeing the ghost first OR
Later writers made up both the Gospels and all of Paul's letters?

If not, how did the less-contested business letters of Paul and the Gospel stories come about in your hypothesis?

It could be argued that Manehivi (1940-41) was the John Frum's Paul

Fine. Could you please provide a link to Manehini's religious writings, and his missionary journeys to peoples outside the region where the John Frum cults originated?

Of course since Manehivi was illiterate

Hmm. That'd be OK if we were looking for John Frum's Mohammed, but it does complicate Manehivi being "just like" Paul. Well, perhaps the international breadth of his missionary journeys will make up for it, when we get the link.

Historical anthropology doesn't look for one to one comparisons anymore then anthropology does; it rather looks for reasonable parallels.

In other words, "historical anthropology" doesn't find Frum-veneration "just like" early Christianity, you, and only you, do that. Scholarship finds "reasonable parallels," a weaker kind of relationship than what you have proposed here.

 

[zugzwang]

It is also odd when all the other Ancient History that they don't seem to have a problem with, is arrived at using the same methods on similar sorts of material.

They really do seem to think Jesus is special.

Weird.

Yes, Tim O'Neill has always argued that the bar is raised in relation to Jesus; so that arguments which are accepted for other figures in ancient history, are suddenly inadequate for Jesus. I've never really followed this through, but it would be interesting, to see how other ancient figures are discussed in comparison with Jesus.

I think this point is often made about the argument from silence, the argument about contemporary evidence, the argument against hearsay, and so on.

 

[dejudge]

You have not answered any questions put to you.

You have not defended your idiotic "Theory".

You certainly haven't demonstrated any ability with logic.

I am baffled as to why you would think you are in a position to offer anyone advice on their debating tactics.

What massive lies!!

Let me lay out the evidence again.

1. It is documented the Jewish Temple of God Fell c 70 CE.

2. All stories of Jesus and the cult that have been ACTUALLY recovered and dated are AFTER c 70 CE--the 2nd century or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

You have NO actual recovered dated evidence pre 70 CE for your irreconcilable HJ--Nothing--Zero.

We know the history of the ON-GOING Quest for HJ. We know it is an established failed dead end argument.

HJ is an established HOAX

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

Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase..

The HJ HOAX has been proven.

If there was an HJ it would not have taken hundreds of years, multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ, and multiple failed attempts.

 

[Craig B]

... You have NO actual recovered dated evidence pre 70 CE for your irreconcilable HJ--Nothing--Zero.

We know the history of the ON-GOING Quest for HJ. We know it is an established failed dead end argument.

HJ is an established HOAX ...

The HJ HOAX has been proven.

I'm not sure of the answer to this. Is there any evidence for the existence of Josephus and Philo in "recovered dated evidence" from the First Century, in which they are believed to have lived? That is, writings surviving in documents or inscriptions datable to that century.

 

[maximara]

Yes, Tim O'Neill has always argued that the bar is raised in relation to Jesus; so that arguments which are accepted for other figures in ancient history, are suddenly inadequate for Jesus. I've never really followed this through, but it would be interesting, to see how other ancient figures are discussed in comparison with Jesus.

I think this point is often made about the argument from silence, the argument about contemporary evidence, the argument against hearsay, and so on.

The Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page at RationalWiki goes over this argument:

There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person here)

When discussing the evidence for Jesus' existence, a common claim made by apologists is that there is "more evidence for Jesus than 'X'".[179] This is often because ancient records really are sparse for the existence of some ancient kings, Pharaohs of Egypt, or other historical figures. However, what evidence we do have is higher quality than what exists for Jesus. This does not mean it is necessarily worthless, but it means it is worth questioning. Court records, birth records, even lists of property owners or tax records do not have this doubt attached. Finding a document that said "Jesus, known as the Christ, was crucified today, in the Court of..." would be this kind of evidence.

One common claim is that there are "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus". This number comes from counting each individual handwritten document (from full codices down to mere scraps) with New Testament text on it, including multiple copies of the same texts. The actual number is 5500 ancient fragments (dating from before the printing press) of any writings from the New Testament.[180] It should be noted that just 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[181]

While it is is impossible to cover all the ancient figures and events Jesus has been compared to there are a few popular ones that show just how shaky the position really is.

Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BC?): his very existence is debated in scholarly circles [182] despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

Confucius (Kong Qiu) (551–479 BCE) the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survived). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18 volume of the 180 volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state not exactly minor potions one could create a fictitious person to fill.

Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).[183]

Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE), and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

Hippocrates (c460 – c370 BCE): written about by contemporary Plato.

Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE): official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus where all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Then you have mosaics and coins also contemporaneous with Alexander.

Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE): Often refereed to as the "Pagan Christ", fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article.

Boadicea (d. 60 CE): Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Unlike the New Testament, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime and there are some that say it was compiled shortly before his death. Moreover there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary to Muhammad.[184]

Now compare those to Jesus:

1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.

As you can see from this sampling, the ancient person being compared to Jesus is generally in far better shape in terms of documentation.

----

As the above show the argument is generally bogus mainly because while there are ancient people for who there is as bad or worse evidence for Jesus they are already on the 'eehhh maybe' list (Moses) or are names that the average person wouldn't easily recognize (Asklepios). Also is should be pointed out when Robert Silverberg published The Great Doctors in 1964 he stated "If he (Imhotep) really lived at all..." showing that even the greats may not be on as firm a ground as people like to think.

 

[Craig B]

There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person here) ...

As the above show the argument is generally bogus mainly because while there are ancient people for who there is as bad or worse evidence for Jesus they are already on the 'eehhh maybe' list (Moses) or are names that the average person wouldn't easily recognize.

Yes that's right. Do you find lots of people on the thread who argue otherwise? I admit there's more evidence for Caesar than for Jesus, but the point - not discussed in your post - is whether the evidence for Jesus is enough to make it reasonable to believe that he did exist. I think it is. But others may reasonably disagree. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with the statement that Hannibal really existed.

 

[dejudge]

1. It is documented the Jewish Temple of God Fell c 70 CE.

2. All stories of Jesus and the cult that have been ACTUALLY recovered and dated are AFTER c 70 CE--the 2nd century or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

You have NO actual recovered dated evidence pre 70 CE for your irreconcilable HJ--Nothing--Zero.

We know the history of the ON-GOING Quest for HJ. We know it is an established failed dead end argument.

HJ is an established HOAX

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

Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase..

The HJ HOAX has been proven.

If there was an HJ it would not have taken hundreds of years, multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ, and multiple failed attempts.

I'm not sure of the answer to this. Is there any evidence for the existence of Josephus and Philo in "recovered dated evidence" from the First Century, in which they are believed to have lived? That is, writings surviving in documents or inscriptions datable to that century.

Please, do not divert from the discussion.

We are dealing with the HJ Hoax.

The recovered dated manuscripts of the Jesus story and cult are from the 2nd century or later.

In those recovered manuscripts the Jesus character is described as the Son of God born of a Ghost who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection, commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel and then ascended in a cloud.

This is extremely important---It must be noted that it was the RESURRECTED Ghost who told the disciples to preach the Gospel.

The preaching of Gospel was NEVER authorized by a human living Jesus.

There is simply no evidence at all from the 1st century pre 70 CE of any Gospel of Jesus and no evidence at all of a Jesus cult who preached the Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus pre 70 CE.

After hundreds of years of searching, the HJ QUESTERS have come away empty-handed and now seem to be blaming other people for their failures.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes that's right. Do you find lots of people on the thread who argue otherwise? I admit there's more evidence for Caesar than for Jesus, but the point - not discussed in your post - is whether the evidence for Jesus is enough to make it reasonable to believe that he did exist. I think it is. But others may reasonably disagree. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with the statement that Hannibal really existed.

Yes, I wasn't making the argument that 'there is more/better evidence for Jesus than for X', but I was citing Tim O'Neill's point that the bar is raised for Jesus by some people. As I said, I have never really made a point by point comparison, but it would presumably mean, for example, that contemporary evidence would not be required for X, but would be for Jesus, and so on.