Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
. . .any attempt to codify this felt, woeful, woo-full faith sends me scampering into a vagueness that prohibits me from embracing the whole of any one religion.

Atheism may be the best religion which will not make the atheists happy to hear.
It is this codifying which is the problem and I think I get what you mean, that the human mind wants to organize, label, and file everything, including God.
If you were to break free from that desire, what would you end up with? Good question and I will continue asking.

 

[Akhenaten]

I doubt you would find it an interesting enough topic to want to create a theory of it.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the writings of Aberhaten.

LOTR I would guess could be a resource to fuel much debate, but there would be parameters such as, Evidence can only come from the writings of Tolkien. If there was a point of contention between fans over the particular nature of one of the characters and why he did a certain thing, it would make sense to use internal evidence to resolve the issue.

I didn't ask for a synopsis of the numerous debates that already take place about LOTR, many of them in this very forum. (Middle Earth - The Untold Story The White comes to mind). I asked how close LOTR is to becoming a true story, based on the amount of study that has been conducted on it.

I'm saying that if you restrict the debate on Christian theology to the evidence only coming from the Bible you get a different outcome than if you allow a whole bunch of outside sources.

Yes, because the debate that allows outside evidence pretty soon shows that it's all based on fiction and propaganda.

My point being, what I have presented is in accordance with the strictest rules of evidence.

Using the Bible as evidence of it's own veracity must be on one of the pages that are missing from my rule book.

 

[Ethnikos]

So are you saying that your conclusions are fact?
This isn't a debate on Christian theology, per se.

Yes, it is fact. Anyone wanting to dispute it are invited to do so.
What I mean by fact is according to the Bible and you would have to accept it as fact. Just like the LOTR example, you would have to accept Tolkien as fact as prerequisite to entering the debate.
I realize I am off-topic but just answering things brought up on the thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Atheism may be the best religion which will not make the atheists happy to hear.

No, it's far more likely to make atheists grind their teeth a little before having to point out for the billionth time that atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, it is fact. Anyone wanting to dispute it are invited to do so.

Very generous of you.

What I mean by fact is according to the Bible and you would have to accept it as fact. Just like the LOTR example, you would have to accept Tolkien as fact as prerequisite to entering the debate.

Putting people who believe Lord of the Rings to be a factual account in the same category as people who accept the Bible as fact is rather appropriate.

Notwithstanding that, do you actually believe that people who debate about LOTR are made up of one group who believes the stories are true and another which doesn't?

I realize I am off-topic but just answering things brought up on the thread.

Well you aren't convincing anyone that Jesus existed, that's for sure.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes, it is fact. Anyone wanting to dispute it are invited to do so.
What I mean by fact is according to the Bible and you would have to accept it as fact. Just like the LOTR example, you would have to accept Tolkien as fact as prerequisite to entering the debate.
I realize I am off-topic but just answering things brought up on the thread.

I asked if your conclusions were fact since you claimed it was not just your opinion.

I don't buy for a second that your opinions should rise to the level of fact. There wouldn't be any contention in this matter if that were the case. For the past two thousand years (give or take), theologians, rhetoricians, historians, and so on have argued over and disagreed over the 'correct' interpretation.

I lurked on several of the similar 'did Jesus exist' threads and I recall DOC's endless quoting of the bible as proof of the bible and Piggy's rather bombastic claims of being able to provide a huge wall of evidence to show Jesus existed (but I never did see any result of that and it was promised months and months ago. If anyone read it, I'd be grateful for a link to his magnum opus).

All it could have taken is one mistaken guy (Paul) with fervor, dedication, and passion to sell it to others who would, in turn, sell it to others. I'm atheistic, I have no dog in this fight; I could care less whether or not Jesus existed. My whole interest in this subject is to further hone my critical thinking skills.

Have any evidence that Jesus existed? I'd be very much interested in seeing it. I changed my opinion once, I can change it back based on evidence.

 

[RandFan]

Atheism may be the best religion which will not make the atheists happy to hear.

I'm neither happy nor unhappy. If we decided to change the definition of religion to include atheism it would be okay with me except that we would then need a new word for religion.

Until we do that I simply have to note that atheism is not by definition a religion. You will have to change the usage of either "atheism", "religion" or both.

 

[Mudcat]

That explains one of the avatars on this forum, I think, the Cthulu.

Are your eyes only for decoration? Half the avatars on this site are related to Cthulu or FSM (which the design of is Cthuluesque).

Well it is a very popular myth and you have to wonder what Paul was thinking when he wrote his letters.

I see some parallels between the Cthulu mythos and Christianity. The Necronomicon
is completely fictional, as is/are the Old Ones, the Deep Ones, R'yleh, Cthulu... and yet people still insist it's based upon reality.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday The Norseman,

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it
(Did you know "Norseman" is the name of a town in outback Western Australia? It's the 'turn-off' from W.A. to eastern states - little there but a petrol station

Perhaps Kapyong needs to repost his rundown on people likely to have reported about Jesus, people who should have but didn't, and so on. It was an interesting read.
I was solidly in the "Jesus probably existed" camp until HansMustermann and Kapyong came along. Kapyong provided clarification on the history of the subject and Hans kept hammering away at the assumptions that are apparently endemic in this debate.

Here is my list of early writers who "coulda, woulda, shoulda" mentioned Jesus :


How Likely was a mention of Jesus?

The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.

Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include :
a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,


I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)
I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.

As well as -
writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.


Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity.

The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand. This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject. Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.
I have also included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them.



Summary of Results

1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)

3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)

31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.


(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)



WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5



WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4


PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4



JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3



WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS


DAMIS

Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2




PLINY THE ELDER

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE

Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



JUVENAL

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.

Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



MARTIAL

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.

Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
virgin's blood,
Roman funerary practices,
the way accused men look in court,
Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
anointing the body with oil,
Molorchus the good shepherd,
Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,

This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PETRONIUS

Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.

Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
a CRUCIFIXION !
a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
books such as the Iliad,
Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
baths, shipwrecks, meals...

This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PAUSANIAS

Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



EPICTETUS

Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.

Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
the early Christians,
or
the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



AELIUS ARISTIDES

Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



FRONTO

Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.

According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PERSIUS

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)

Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



DIO CHRYSOSTOM

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



AULUS GELLIUS

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



LUCIUS APULEIUS

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MARCUS AURELIUS

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MUSONIUS RUFUS

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



HIEROCLES

Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MAXIMUS of TYRE

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



ARRIAN

Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.

The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APPIAN

Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



THEON of SMYRNA

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.

Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.

Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.

An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.

The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



QUINTILIAN

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.

One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCAN

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.

In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
mentions an event from 56CE,
refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



STATIUS

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.

Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HERO of ALEXANDRIA

Hero of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



GEMINUS

Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ALBINUS

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ARISTOCLES

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APOLLODORUS

Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HEPHAESTION

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5




WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS


JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.



TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.




WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

Dion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus



Kapyong

 

[RandFan]

Here is my list of early writers who "coulda, woulda, shoulda" mentioned Jesus :

Wow! The most significant event of recorded history and historians failed to document it. Thanks. I knew about some of these but honestly, I had no idea of how extensive the list is.

And if Christ was crucified and rose from the dead why didn't more people become followers of Christ. The cult nearly disappeared at one point.

 

[bikerdruid]

Here is my list of early writers who "coulda, woulda, shoulda" mentioned Jesus :.....snip

wow.
thanks for that interesting and detailed post.

doc??

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Pardon my rude response before Dessi.
I was frustrated that you dismissed the JM theory without actually knowing anything about it.

Christ myth explanations suggest that Christ-like concepts existed in oral tradition centuries before Jesus did, and that Jesus is a re-invented pagan god.

This is not an accurate representation of the Jesus Myth theory, sorry.
It's ONE version - not the mainstream one.

Earl Doherty's JM theory e.g. is NOT based on a "pagan God".
I hope you find the time to study these issues, Dessi.

The emphasis on Oral Tradition is also not right - Mythical Jesus was derived from the Tanakh - a written work.

The subject has been done to death on this forum, and I think the general consensus is that "re-invented pagan god" theories are based on 150+ year outdated scholarship,

What a pity you are still arguing out-of-date theories.
I hope you find the time to come to terms with what MAINSTREAM MODERN JM theories are claiming.

Doherty's JM has NOTHING to do with "pagan Gods". I hope you can find the time to read Earl Doherty - the premier JMer of the day. His theory is nothing like your claims.

Christ could very well be a myth, but not for the "pagan prototype" reasons that mythicists argue.

We DON'T argue that.
I really hope you come to realise that.
Some crackpost do argue that way - but they are not the main JM theory. Doherty is the current champion - will you read his works?
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

and there appears to be handful of credible extra-biblical references to him (will cite on request).

None are credible.


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
So,
this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself, at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
we have none of his works,
it is not certain when he wrote,
all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
he was several generations after the alleged events,
he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
he is several generations after the alleged events,
he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
this was several generations later,
Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus, the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates. It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.



Kapyong

 

[catsmate]

A 14 page, unsearchable (scanned) PDF?

We are supposed to read the entire thing because you haven't a clue what it says? Really Brainache? Really?

Look, clearly the link is about the subject but what are it's claims specifically. Typically good form requires that you quote some relevant text and provide the page number. I mean, how do we even know that you read it and are relevant with the claims purported. We KNOW the guy makes claims. That wasn't in dispute.

It's a scan of part of 'Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls' by Atwill and Braunheim, you can read it in html here.

However, to put it simply, no-one outside a handful of cranks takes their commentary on the process seriously. Here¹ is a detailed critique of their purported re-examination of the dating process by Johannes van der Plicht who said of Atwill and Braunheim's work:

...this conclusion is wrong and unjustified. It is based on a incorrect understanding of statistical processes underlying the principles of 14C dating, the calibration of 14C dates, and their interpretation. In addition, “Redating the Dating” exhibits major mathematical deficiencies to the point that the argument used by the authors backfires

Furthermore they (Atwill and Braunheim) fail to take into account that the dating process for the scrolls was not limited to C¹⁴ but also included textual/scribal and paleographic and these techniques agreed well with each other.

When Eisenman published the work of Atwill and Braunheim back in 2004 Edward Cook said of it:

As I stated, I just don't have the science to assess many of the claims in this article. It looks to me like its real agenda is to clear the way for Eisenman's claims that the scrolls are connected to early Christianity, and I regard that theory as far-fetched.

and

I will say that when the article speaks about matters in which I am a specialist, it is disingenuous and self-serving. An example is when the authors refer to "dated evidence of a contract [evidently 4Q348] carrying the name of a High Priest and date of approximately 46-47 CE; thus giving vivid internal evidence that negates any idea that the documents were deposited in this cave prior to this time" (p. 150). I can't believe that the authors don't know that all the Qumran texts numbered 4Q342-8, 4Q351-60 are unprovenanced and thought to come in fact from the Wadi Seiyal! They also apparently don't know that the Kefar Bebayou papyrus is now known as the Kefar Berayu papyrus (p. 156).

Greg Doudna said, on the dating controversy²:

There was a lot of looking for Jesus and John the Baptist, etc. in the scrolls in the early years. But that does not seem to have been a factor in the scroll deposit dating. Scholars today know that none of the texts are written as late as the first century CE. Everyone agrees on that. Well, Eisenman and Thiering think there are first-century CE references in the texts, but their views are not accepted by other Qumran scholars. In fact, ironically, Eisenman uses the argument (paraphrased): "why would the people of the Qumran scrolls spend all of their time writing peshers and other texts about events and persons of a century or more earlier, and never write about what was happening contemporary to themselves, in the first century CE?" Given the premise of CE deposits, Eisenman’s argument has a point. The problem is the premise. The Qumran field already knows the text compositions are not later than 1st century BCE.

¹ 13 page PDF with text and graphics
² Greg Doudna, "The Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation: the Dating of the Qumran Cave Scroll Deposits"

 

[Ethnikos]

Are your eyes only for decoration? Half the avatars on this site are related to Cthulu or FSM (which the design of is Cthuluesque).
I see some parallels between the Cthulu mythos and Christianity. The Necronomicon
is completely fictional, as is/are the Old Ones, the Deep Ones, R'yleh, Cthulu... and yet people still insist it's based upon reality.

I have to admit complete ignorance but it seems interesting enough to take a look at. May be important in future discussions to have at least some knowledge.

 

[Ethnikos]

Until we do that I simply have to note that atheism is not by definition a religion. You will have to change the usage of either "atheism", "religion" or both.

I should do some searches to see if there is such a thing as a religion with no God. Meanwhile I need to avoid putting those two words in the same sentence.

 

[Akhenaten]

I should do some searches to see if there is such a thing as a religion with no God.

I'd start by googling 'buddhism'.

 

[Ethnikos]

I asked if your conclusions were fact since you claimed it was not just your opinion.
*snip*
I don't buy for a second that your opinions should rise to the level of fact. Have any evidence that Jesus existed? I'd be very much interested in seeing it. I changed my opinion once, I can change it back based on evidence.

Fact in the make-believe world where the Bible is the sole arbiter of what is real.
I presented my evidence that Jesus could have been a real person, earlier on this thread. I could recap.
The Messiah dies and Herod kills the son, marries the daughter and proclaims himself King of the Jews. The true successor to the messiah (Jesus) lives in obscurity. He is known through family relations to one Joseph of Arimathea who is a world traveler and an acquaintance of one Pontius Pilate. When he (Pilate) arrives in Judea, he is horrified by the lock down of political power that has been created by this High Priesthood. Joseph meets Pilate and a conversation ensues and ends with Joseph recommending a certain man of the order of the high priests who is actually a relation to the former Messiah. Pilate orders this man to be made high Priest. This is allowed to stand for one year before Pilate is persuaded to relent for political reasons and the hegemony of this position reverts back to the dynasty of priests who had been controlling it.
This obscure priest returns to normal life hiding the fact that he is the Messiah, which is a lifelong appointment and the current holders are actually technically ineligible for it but use their wealth to suppress opposition. He eventually meets with the rebel religionists, including his cousin (John the Baptist) who had already given up hope on the entire temple system. This Jesus was reluctant to give up and decided to give it a chance and if he could just gain a footing in the temple he could cause a reformation. Once he made up his mind to take this thing on, his powers of Messiah took hold and they began to be exhibited, just like the ones of his predecessor Messiah.

 

[Ethnikos]

I'd start by googling 'buddhism'.

I was thinking of something more generic but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[RandFan]

However, to put it simply, no-one outside a handful of cranks takes their commentary on the process seriously. Here¹ is a detailed critique of their purported re-examination of the dating process by Johannes van der Plicht who said of Atwill and Braunheim's work: Furthermore they (Atwill and Braunheim) fail to take into account that the dating process for the scrolls was not limited to C¹⁴ but also included textual/scribal and paleographic and these techniques agreed well with each other.

When Eisenman published the work of Atwill and Braunheim back in 2004 Edward Cook said of it:
and
Greg Doudna said, on the dating controversy²:

¹ 13 page PDF with text and graphics
² Greg Doudna, "The Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation: the Dating of the Qumran Cave Scroll Deposits"

Thanks. And the part that talks about Jesus and his apostles?

 

[The Norseman]

Gday The Norseman,

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it
(Did you know "Norseman" is the name of a town in outback Western Australia? It's the 'turn-off' from W.A. to eastern states - little there but a petrol station

Here is my list of early writers who "coulda, woulda, shoulda" mentioned Jesus :

*snip*

Kapyong

Off Topic:

Heh. No, I was not aware of that. There's now a third reason for me to visit Oz: the first is I really want to have a souvenir from the town called 'Tittybong' just because. Second, I have some friends who live there in Australia -- can't remember the first little town and then there are several who live in Sydney.

Now, looks like I've got to visit my namesake!

On Topic:

Yes, that's the list that was the clincher for me personally. It would be pretty cool if the HJ proponents could come up with a similar-looking list in favor of, but I have yet to see it.