Was there really a Jesus?

Rashers

There is not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

No artifacts, dwelling, or self-written manuscripts.

All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There's no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus.

There is not a single contemporary (secular) piece of documentation that mentions Jesus. All documents regarding Jesus were written well after his alleged life by either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

As for the question of whether or not the Gospels are a reliable source of his existence. The problem with the Gospels is that we don't even know who wrote them, they were all written well after Jesus alleged life. Even more problematic is that none of the original Gospels exist, just copies of copies.

Furthermore, many of Jesus sayings, miracles, and his virgin birth, rising, and symbolic 'son' identity, can all be traced back to earlier religions - namely Mithraism, Paganism, Hinduism, and a host of other extremely old religious belief systems.

There really is no evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ ever lived, died, and rose again.

There is more evidence to support that Cleopatra lived than there is evidence that Jesus lived. And Cleopatra lived some 2,000 years before Jesus allegedly did.

What do you think?

Pompey Magnus

I would say that its more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but the true story of his life became heavily padded with fiction and philosophy. To claim that Jesus did not exist puts a certain burden of proof on the skeptic which is not necessary, I am happy enough to accept he did exist but most of the extraordinary claims in the Gospels are false.

P.S. Just a minor point but Cleopatra lived during the 1st Century BC.

Asiaprod

Rashers wrote: »

What do you think?

As mentioned by Depeche_Mode, a historical person named Jesus did [edit, misquoted Depeche_Mode, should have said may have] existed. I think that on this forum you need to rethink what your actual point or question is, otherwise you could be mistaken as a troll:)
What point exactly are you trying to make?

Rashers

Asiaprod wrote: »

As mentioned by Depeche_Mode, a historical person named Jesus did exist.

And the proof of that statement can be found.... where?

I think that on this forum you need to rethink what your actual point or question is, otherwise you could be mistaken as a troll:)
What point exactly are you trying to make?

I'm not trying to make a point per se, beyond opening a discussion about the lack of proof that there really was a historical Jesus.

Neither am I a troll, I set the post to encourage discussion.

If no one wishes to discuss, then that's fine.

Pompey Magnus

Rashers wrote: »

And the proof of that statement can be found.... where?

There is no proof as such that Jesus existed but then again there is no proof that 99.99999999% of ancient people existed, we still know that they did though. There is no reason to assume that Jesus did not exist, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

If the Gospel story was about a twelve foot tall giant with the head of a bull and the body of a human then there would be good reason to doubt its historical accuracy but instead it mostly concerns a normal Jewish rabbi who made some pretty memorable statements. There is no good reason to doubt this.

Asiaprod

Rashers wrote: »

And the proof of that statement can be found.... where?

To further encourage discussion and to just clarify facts these documents all refer to the existence of a person named Jesus.

· Flavius Josephus - c90CE
· Suetonius - c120CE
· Tactitus - 110CE
· Pliny - c110CE
· Thallus - cited in c300CE
· Talmud - 200-500CE
· Acts of Pilate'

The issue is not did a person named Jesus exist, the issue I think may be who is this person named Jesus. I, however, am not qualified to answer that question. I welcome discussion on it.

Glenman

From the Padre Pio thread and this thread there appears to be demons working on behalf of the devil influencing some of the posters here!! Don't think I will be back

JimiTime

Glenman wrote: »

From the Padre Pio thread and this thread there appears to be demons working on behalf of the devil influencing some of the posters here!! Don't think I will be back

Why does it have to be demons influencing? could it not just be people who have the wrong info, no faith etc etc? Man can reject God all on his own. They don't need to be driven by demonic forces!

Rashers

Asiaprod wrote: »

To further encourage discussion and to just clarify facts these documents all refer to the existence of a person named Jesus.

· Flavius Josephus - c90CE

Let's start with Josephus. The writing I believe you refer to is a well known forgery, and accepted as such by many Christian and Jewish scholars.

1. Josephus's works was well known to the early church fathers but there is no reference to the passage regarding Jesus until the time of Eusebius, well into the 4th century.

2. Josephus was Jewish and as such would never have referred to anyone as 'messiah'.

3. The passage about a 'messiah' was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus' work which would be unlikely if the passage had existed at the time of Origen.

4. The passage first shows up at the time of Eusebius and was still absent from some copies of Josephus's work as late as the 8th century CE.These considerations, when coupled to the obvious Christian wordings of the passage show that it is an early Christian forgery.

· Suetonius - c120CE
· Tactitus - 110CE
· Pliny - c110CE
· Thallus - cited in c300CE

None contempraneous with the time Jesus was supposed to have existed.

Can you quote the relevant passages from the above writers... along with the dates?

· Talmud - 200-500CE
· Acts of Pilate'

Hardly acceptable proof?

The issue is not did a person named Jesus exist,

I think that is the very issue.

the issue I think may be who is this person named Jesus.

Which is an integral part of this discusion. I advance the proposal that there is no hard evidence whatever that he existed. If there is incontroversial proof that he did then the discussion would of course come around to who he really was.

I, however, am not qualified to answer that question. I welcome discussion on it.

Thank you.

But lets hope others will join in too.

Pompey Magnus

Have you ever read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty? It is an interesting book which puts forward the possibility that a historical Jesus never really existed and was instead originally understood to be an entirely heavenly being who existed on a higher sphere between Heaven and Earth. This became confused later and a flesh and blood Jesus was born. I can't find myself entirely buying his argument but I did find it interesting.

santing

Have a look at data available from:
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

I think it is a nice compilation...

And an article on this subject:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157

Soul Winner

Rashers wrote: »

There is not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

No artifacts, dwelling, or self-written manuscripts.

All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There's no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus.

There is not a single contemporary (secular) piece of documentation that mentions Jesus. All documents regarding Jesus were written well after his alleged life by either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

As for the question of whether or not the Gospels are a reliable source of his existence. The problem with the Gospels is that we don't even know who wrote them, they were all written well after Jesus alleged life. Even more problematic is that none of the original Gospels exist, just copies of copies.

Furthermore, many of Jesus sayings, miracles, and his virgin birth, rising, and symbolic 'son' identity, can all be traced back to earlier religions - namely Mithraism, Paganism, Hinduism, and a host of other extremely old religious belief systems.

There really is no evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ ever lived, died, and rose again.

There is more evidence to support that Cleopatra lived than there is evidence that Jesus lived. And Cleopatra lived some 2,000 years before Jesus allegedly did.

What do you think?

Where is your proof that Cleopatra existed? She like Jesus is an historical figure who was written about and these writings have been handed down to us today. What is so different about them? If you just take the New Testament record alone it becomes very clear that Jesus existed even if you don’t believe the other things it claims. You can do this by a simple process of elimination. If He didn't actually exist in history then He is a figment of somebody's imagination right? Then how could such a figment of somebody's imagination be testified to by many different reporters? And if they all the same writer then why wouldn’t this writer reveal his identify? If he was smart enough to forge a personage like Jesus out of his own mind then why is this writer not respected as one of the greatest ever fiction writers in our libraries? If the Jesus that is described in all the accounts did not actually exist then His conjurer (all be it a fraud and a liar) was a very humble one. You see, you need only look at the alternative theories in order to arrive at the most logical one, which is that Jesus did actually exist. Plus why would this clever clogs use the name 'Luke' as the writer of one of the Gospel records when there is no record of a Luke in any of them? If the person who used the name Luke is a fraud then why wouldn't he use a real disciple's name like Peter or Bartholomew? To resolve the question of the historicity of Jesus one needs to look at the record that we have and conclude based on that whether He did or did not actually exist. What we do know about Jesus is that the effects of what’s ascribed to Him as saying and doing are felt in our world today, of that there is no denying. Nobody debates the power of such a figure in the minds of millions therefore it falls to the objector to provide proof that He did not in fact exist. As DM quite rightly states, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So the question should be, where is your proof that He did not exist?

gramlab

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where is your proof that Cleopatra existed? She like Jesus is an historical figure who was written about and these writings have been handed down to us today

.

Think he is hinting at more believable evidence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If he was smart enough to forge a personage like Jesus out of his own mind then why is this writer not respected as one of the greatest ever fiction writers in our libraries?

Isn't that the whole argument of atheists

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nobody debates the power of such a figure in the minds of millions therefore it falls to the objector to provide proof that He did not in fact exist. As DM quite rightly states, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So the question should be, where is your proof that He did not exist?

I fully believe that "a Jesus" did exist. It's just the things he is credited with considering the times he lived in that are suspect in the least.(as well as a lot of other stuff)

BrianCalgary

Well rashers I think I may be wasting my time here as it seems that you dont want to know the evidence.

Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Josephus has written elsewhere that Jesus was "called the Christ.

I have put in bold the parts that are accepted as being interpolations of the original text.

With regard to the phrase 'he was the Christ' is considered and addition because in another writing Josephus says that Jesus is 'called the Christ'.

Bottom line Josephus did write about Jesus and teh Christian sect. Historical evidence for Jesus and His role in first century Rome.

Josephus' account of the Jewish War is so precise that faith in his ability to write historical accuracy is unquestioned. So his facts about Jesus are also accurate.

Rashers

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where is your proof that Cleopatra existed?

There is empirical proof that she existed... artifacts as well as contemporary historical writings etc.

If you just take the New Testament record alone it becomes very clear that Jesus existed

The writings of four people? The contents of which cannot be proved, and they even disagree on several points.

He is a figment of somebody's imagination right?

Possibly. That's the point.

Then how could such a figment of somebody's imagination be testified to by many different reporters?

Only four 'reporters' wrote the gospels. And the earliest was written at least 60 years after the alleged Jesus.

If he was smart enough to forge a personage like Jesus out of his own mind then why is this writer not respected as one of the greatest ever fiction writers in our libraries?

The political power of the Holy Roman Church at that time? May I suggest a study of The Council of Nicea in AD 325.. and the politics and power struggles leading up to it... and following it?

Plus why would this clever clogs use the name 'Luke' as the writer of one of the Gospel records when there is no record of a Luke in any of them?

Thank you. That helps make my point.

If the person who used the name Luke is a fraud then why wouldn't he use a real disciple's name like Peter or Bartholomew?

More questions to be answered before we can accept the accuracy of the gospels eh?

To resolve the question of the historicity of Jesus one needs to look at the record that we have

The records of four people only? Written years after??

What we do know about Jesus is that the effects of what’s ascribed to Him as saying and doing are felt in our world today, of that there is no denying.

That's debatable.

Nobody debates the power of such a figure in the minds of millions

Minds of people who need religion in their lives, and their thought process on this shaped by their religious leaders.

therefore it falls to the objector to provide proof that He did not in fact exist.

Ah no.... you don't answer a question by asking one. But I'll go along with you here. I can't, nor can anyone else prove that he existed. No proof is available that he did.

So the question should be, where is your proof that He did not exist?

And that's part of the debate isn't it? All I can prove is that there's no actual proof of his existance. If you disagree then show me proof that cannot be denied.

BrianCalgary

Rashers wrote: »

There is empirical proof that she existed... artifacts as well as contemporary historical writings etc.



The writings of four people? The contents of which cannot be proved, and they even disagree on several points. .

The gospels have been proven to be highly accurate.

Rashers wrote: »

Only four 'reporters' wrote the gospels. And the earliest was written at least 60 years after the alleged Jesus. .

DOnt know where you are getting your info from. But here are the dates of the gospels:
Mark 60
MAtthew Prior to 70
Luke Early 60's
John 85 to 90.

Just to ask a question: what are your thoughts on the historical accuracy of Alexander the Great?

Rashers

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Well rashers I think I may be wasting my time here as it seems that you dont want to know the evidence.

Josephus:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Josephus has written elsewhere that Jesus was "called the Christ.

I have put in bold the parts that are accepted as being interpolations of the original text.

With regard to the phrase 'he was the Christ' is considered and addition because in another writing Josephus says that Jesus is 'called the Christ'.

Bottom line Josephus did write about Jesus and teh Christian sect. Historical evidence for Jesus and His role in first century Rome.

Josephus' account of the Jewish War is so precise that faith in his ability to write historical accuracy is unquestioned. So his facts about Jesus are also accurate.

But I've already said that the particular part of Josephus that you quote is a well known forgery.

Josephus's works were well known to the early church fathers but there is no reference to the passage regarding Jesus until the time of Eusebius, well into the 4th century.

The passages you emboldened were not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus work which would be unlikely if the passage had existed at the time of Origen.

The passages first show up at the time of Eusebius and were still absent from some copies of Josephus's work as late as the 8th century CE.

These considerations, when coupled to the obvious Christian wordings of the passage show that it is an early Christian forgery.

The fact that he wrote of a war proves nothing in this discussion.

BrianCalgary

Rashers wrote: »

But I've already said that the particular part of Josephus that you quote is a well known forgery.

Josephus's works were well known to the early church fathers but there is no reference to the passage regarding Jesus until the time of Eusebius, well into the 4th century.

The passages you emboldened were not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus work which would be unlikely if the passage had existed at the time of Origen.

The passages first show up at the time of Eusebius and were still absent from some copies of Josephus's work as late as the 8th century CE.

These considerations, when coupled to the obvious Christian wordings of the passage show that it is an early Christian forgery.

The fact that he wrote of a war proves nothing in this discussion.

Not a forgery at all. The parts in bold are consiered additions. But the passage itself is authentically Josephus.

You mention that there are copies of Josephus' works as late as the 8th century that dont include this passage?

What other parts are missing from other manuscripts of Josephus?

All ancient manuscripts have large parts missing. Yet when all are pieced together you get a very accurate portrayal of what the author actually did write.

So the fact that there are manuscripts as late as the 8th century that have this missing is irrelevant if there are other manuscripts thatinclude this passage.

Also it is not the only place that Josephus mentions Jesus and the sect of Christianity.

Rashers

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The gospels have been proven to be highly accurate.

Proven by whom... and how?

DOnt know where you are getting your info from. But here are the dates of the gospels:
Mark 60
MAtthew Prior to 70
Luke Early 60's
John 85 to 90.

That cannot be taken as hard and fast fact.

Let's take just one here.... the text of the Gospel According to Mark does not specifically identify anyone as the author. Not even “Mark” is identified as the author.

In theory, “Mark” could have simply related a series of events and stories to someone else who collected them, edited them, and set them down in the gospel form.

It wasn't until the second century that the title “According to Mark” or “The Gospel According to Mark” was affixed to the document that bears his name.

Again we come back to the only evidence of a historical Jesus.... the quite brief writings of four people.

Just to ask a question: what are your thoughts on the historical accuracy of Alexander the Great?

I don't have any thoughts on the historical accuracy of Alexander the Great.

BrianCalgary

Mark as Author

Papias affirms mark as author in AD125 and Iranaeus in AD180.

Mark wrote based on the testimony of Peter. Peter was with Jesus for His entire ministry and would be valued as an accurate eyewitness.

BrianCalgary

Rashers wrote: »

Again we come back to the only evidence of a historical Jesus.... the quite brief writings of four people..

I was right, you really dont care about th eevidence.

We have shown you Josephus' writings which you have been unable to disprove. I have typed it out for you as written by Josephus.

We havent even touched on tacitus and Pliny.

Rashers wrote: »

I don't have any thoughts on the historical accuracy of Alexander the Great.

You should so that you can put the Bible, Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus in the context of other ancient manuscripts and biographies. That way you can do some real historical study.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not a forgery at all. The parts in bold are consiered additions. But the passage itself is authentically Josephus.

You mention that there are copies of Josephus' works as late as the 8th century that dont include this passage?

What other parts are missing from other manuscripts of Josephus?

All ancient manuscripts have large parts missing. Yet when all are pieced together you get a very accurate portrayal of what the author actually did write.

So the fact that there are manuscripts as late as the 8th century that have this missing is irrelevant if there are other manuscripts thatinclude this passage.

Also it is not the only place that Josephus mentions Jesus and the sect of Christianity.

If the Josephus passage is genuine it raises the question of why such a small mention is attributed by the historian to a man portrayed by the Gospels as a major figure in Judea during the first half of the 1st Century. Josephus writes twice as long about John the Baptist than Jesus, one can infer from this that Jesus was regarded as a rather unimportant footnote in history by Josephus, not the revolutionary Messiah of the Gospels.

That said I'm not sure that it is 100% certain that the passage is authentic Josephus. The Jesus passage does not fit with the context of Antiquities 18. Josephus concentrates here on the folly of Jewish military uprising against Rome, yet in the middle of this he deviates widely and inserts a short, uninformative paragraph about some character he obviously did not regard as being at all important.

Also the flanking passage either side of the Jesus one flow better with the Jesus passage removed. The paragraph prior to Jesus (chap 18-2) deals with Pilate ordering his soldiers to mingle in civilian clothes among a large crowd of Jews protesting about his plans to bring a new water supply to Jerusalem, Pilate orders his soldiers to attack the crowd and "there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition."

Then we have an obscure mention of Jesus followed by "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome." The Jesus paragraph does not fit nicely.

Not conclusive proof but then Christianity has been its own worst enemy, had they not made such obvious alterations to the original then they would have a genuine claim for people to accept the passage, by trying to prove the divinity they have damaged the evidence for the historical character of Jesus.

Asiaprod

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Not conclusive proof but then Christianity has been its own worst enemy, had they not made such obvious alterations to the original then they would have a genuine claim for people to accept the passage, by trying to prove the divinity they have damaged the evidence for the historical character of Jesus.

+1, nice point.

Soul Winner

Rashers wrote: »

There is empirical proof that she existed... artifacts as well as contemporary historical writings etc.

Is that proof though? You are still believing someone else's account of things aren't you? Just because you have taken it as a given that she existed doesn't mean that she did. Please prove she existed for me because I am not convinced.

Rashers wrote: »

The writings of four people? The contents of which cannot be proved, and they even disagree on several points.

Well you are quick to believe the accounts of Cleopatra. What if I said that I believe that the accounts of her are just made up by somebody with vested interests?

Rashers wrote: »

Only four 'reporters' wrote the gospels. And the earliest was written at least 60 years after the alleged Jesus.

The Old Testament teaches that the testimony of two is good enough. The fact that there are four ‘reporters’ sort of does away with the notion that Jesus was a figment of some one person’s imagination doesn't it? So what remains to find out is this; were the four reporters lying in their reports? Let’s look at some intrinsic evidence shall we?

If we assume that they were all lying then why would do this? There would have to be a reason for them to make up their story. And if they were in fact all lying then they would not have known that their story would be around 2000 years later being analysed by us. The only possible reason for them to lie about such a person would be that they wanted to save face after He was killed because they followed Him and now they look stupid because He’s dead so they make up this big lie. That would prove that He was an actual person who walked and talked etc.. So if they are lying about their stories then why do they seem to disagree on certain points? You could argue that they did this because they were lying, but if they were lying and only making this story up to save face then why would they not make sure their story matched up in these areas? What it looks like it on face value is that they all report on the same things from different viewpoints that it appears that contradictions are made but not necessarily, this conclusion is usually leaped upon by those who do not WANT to accept the story in the first place. Anyway let us continue. If they were lying then why is the story of one of the multitude feeding miracles Jesus performed reported as it is? One Gospel points out that Jesus asked Phillip where they could buy food before He performed the miracle. Another Gospel records that Phillip was from Bethsaida and it is yet another Gospel that points out that Bethsaida was the area they were in when He performed the miracle. Put them all together and it makes sense. Phillip was the right person to ask because they were in an area that he knew so if there was a shop they could get food then he would know. You don't find that kind of accurate reporting in a bunch of liars only out to save face for the moment not knowing that their story would survived to be analysed as it has been for centuries. That is just one example of the intrinsic internal evidence that reveals then to be simple minded reporters rather than calculating deceivers. And if they are simple minded reporters then either they were themselves deceived or something extraordinary had taken place at that time.

Rashers wrote: »

The political power of the Holy Roman Church at that time? May I suggest a study of The Council of Nicea in AD 325.. and the politics and power struggles leading up to it... and following it?

The Gospel records were around long before that. So no I will not study The Council of Nicaea. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

Rashers wrote: »

Minds of people who need religion in their lives, and their thought process on this shaped by their religious leaders.

Yaaaaawwwnnn!!! Tired of hearing that.

Rashers wrote: »

Ah no.... you don't answer a question by asking one. But I'll go along with you here. I can't, nor can anyone else prove that he existed. No proof is available that he did.

The evidence is there, what you are saying is that you do not accept the evidence. There is a difference. You will never ever ever get a copy of the Gospel of Josephus or of Pontius Pilate I'm sorry.

Rashers wrote: »

And that's part of the debate isn't it? All I can prove is that there's no actual proof of his existance. If you disagree then show me proof that cannot be denied.

When you prove Cleopatra existed then I will attempt to prove Jesus also existed.

Sapien

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where is your proof that Cleopatra existed?

Countless many contemporaneous monuments and documents, datable - scientifically and contextually - to within years of her early to late reign, in her own and many foreign lands, attesting consistently to her existence and multivarious specific circumstances of her life and exploits.

Soul Winner wrote: »

She like Jesus is an historical figure who was written about and these writings have been handed down to us today.

She was a queen of a vast and ancient kingdom. To compare like with like you would have to find some other prehistoric parochial pauper, celebrated by ancient history and believed in (or on) by a modern many as something other than mere myth. Good luck. Even Gautama was a prince, of a time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is so different about them? If you just take the New Testament record alone it becomes very clear that Jesus existed even if you don’t believe the other things it claims. You can do this by a simple process of elimination. If He didn't actually exist in history then He is a figment of somebody's imagination right? Then how could such a figment of somebody's imagination be testified to by many different reporters?

Hercules? Hermes? Gilgamesh? In for a penny...

My own's worth: there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Jesus existed as anything other than the messianic fantasies of some first century BCE helleno-Hebrew mystics whose followers were lucky enough to find a fast foothold in the syzygial zeitgeist of the Roman Levant.

Popinjay

santing wrote: »

Have a look at data available from:
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

I'll let those better informed debate the authenticity of the passages referring to Jesus. However, the majority of the sources in this link merely attest to the existence of Christians as opposed to a christ. The existence of Scientologists is not evidence for the existence of Xenu.

Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence.

Soul Winner

Sapien wrote: »

Countless many contemporaneous monuments and documents, datable - scientifically and contextually - to within years of her early to late reign, in her own and many foreign lands, attesting consistently to her existence and multivarious specific circumstances of her life and exploits.

Still not convinced. I need proof.

Sapien wrote: »

She was a queen of a vast and ancient kingdom. To compare like with like you would have to find some other prehistoric parochial pauper, celebrated by ancient history and believed in (or on) by a modern many as something other than mere myth. Good luck. Even Gautama was a prince, of a time.

Look I believe she existed, I am just being ludicrous to make a point. At the end of the day we are still only believing reports. When it comes to historical figures there is no way to provided actually proof for any of their existences only strong evidence. And there is plenty of strong evidence that a Jesus who was viewed as the Christ existed even from non Christian records. But that is never accepted by those who just do not want Jesus to have existed.

Sapien wrote: »

Hercules? Hermes? Gilgamesh? In for a penny...

My own's worth: there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Jesus existed as anything other than the messianic fantasies of some first century BCE helleno-Hebrew mystics whose followers were lucky enough to find a fast foothold in the syzygial zeitgeist of the Roman Levant.

So you believe that the four Gospels accounts were dreamt up by different people in different places at different times for the purpose of???? What? How could they possibly have benefited from such an undertaking? Please show me what steps you took in order to arrive at this conclusion.

The most common reason people do not believe the gospel accounts is simply because they contain miraculous events that cannot be explained in the natural. If Christ was God then the things He did are not a big deal really. If that is your basis for not believing the accounts then it is a pretty flimsy basis. Miracles happen all the time, they are no big deal to God. A God who can create the Universe from nothing is quite capable to doing the things ascribed to Him in the New Testament.

If the Gospel reporters were just liars only out to convince people about Jesus being the Son of God then why do they include all these outrageous stories that are so hard to believe?

Why are all the personalities traits of the Disciples interwoven with consistency by all the reporters? You don’t get that kind of accuracy in a bunch of liars who are only out to deceive. And why do all these faltering personalities suddenly change for the better after the event of the Resurrection? Peter was a coward and he becomes a rock, James and John were sons of thunder and become synonymous with love, Thomas is always the doubter and becomes a man of faith who ends up piercing the Himalayas to bring the Gospel to India possibly the most difficult place in the then world to go to bring the Gospel.

If they are all lying then they don’t care about the truth right, all they want to do is convince people about lies that they made up. So why do they all die horrible deaths for this lie? And not only that but they do it alone? You seldom see people who will die for the truth let alone a lie. And even if they know they are lying and are dying for this lie then they know that once they do die that they will not be going to the heaven the preach because by their own preaching unrepentant liars don’t get to heaven.

Ah I could go on all day with this argument and it will always find deaf ears who do not want to hear it. Fine, be my guest, but don’t say that you have studied the record and concluded that is a lie when you never spent five minuets of your life looking at it with an objective open mind, the fact that you believe that it was "first century BCE helleno-Hebrew mystics whose followers were lucky enough to find a fast foothold in the syzygial zeitgeist of the Roman Levant" is enough to tell me that.

There is a thread on this forum asking Christians if they ever read anything that challenges their faith, well I wonder if there are any atheists who read anything that challenges theirs. Like the myriad number of books written about the evidences of the Resurrection.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the Gospel reporters were just liars only out to convince people about Jesus being the Son of God then why do they include all these outrageous stories that are so hard to believe?

Very simple: because there are plenty of people out there -- including you it seems -- who want to believe that it's true. The emotions override the intellect.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why do they all die horrible deaths for this lie? And not only that but they do it alone? You seldom see people who will die for the truth let alone a lie.

Good heavens, have you ever seen pictures of Stalingrad, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or of Auschwitz? I don't recall many people thinking that soviet communism was "true" simply because millions died for it. On the contrary, christianity shares quite a number of features with soviet communism, not the least of which is an unpleasant obsession with dramatic sacrifice and death.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is a thread on this forum asking Christians if they ever read anything that challenges their faith, well I wonder if there are any atheists who read anything that challenges theirs.

You forget that many atheists used to be christians at some point in their lives, but realized that Credo quia absurdum really is absurd.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Mark as Author

Papias affirms mark as author in AD125 and Iranaeus in AD180.

Mark wrote based on the testimony of Peter. Peter was with Jesus for His entire ministry and would be valued as an accurate eyewitness.

What information had Papias access to that confirmed that Mark was the author? After all AD125 is about 50 years after Mark was written, also Papias was not highly regarded by other church fathers like Eusebius. He gathered his information from anonymous presbyters which is not great grounds for accepting his testimony.

Anyways it seems unlikely that The Gospels of Matthew and Mark that Papias was talking about are the same Gospels as we have today. His Gospel of Mark was mixed up chronologically while our Gospel of Mark is in proper chronological order, his Gospel of Matthew was a Hebrew Gospel of the sayings of Jesus, our Gospel of Matthew is a narrative originally written in Greek. He seems to have been talking about two other, now extinct, anonymous Gospels.

So to recap: The earliest evidence we have that indicates the anonymous Gospel we now attribute to Mark was indeed written by Mark (the companion of Peter) is from a man who lived hundreds of miles from the place the Gospel was allegedly written, he was distrusted by other prominant church figures at the time, he was relaying an oral tradition from men he does not name, and to top it all off he seems to have been talking about a completely different Gospel. Call me an unreasonable skeptic if you wish but I'm not yet quite convinced.

robindch

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Papias was not highly regarded by other church fathers like Eusebius.

And Eusebius was no great shakes himself either. See the freshly tidied-up section on his limitations here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea#Limitations

Pompey Magnus

robindch wrote: »

And Eusebius was no great shakes himself either. See the freshly tidied-up section on his limitations here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea#Limitations

So it is even more confusing, if an unreliable source (Eusebius) calls another source (Papias) unreliable does that make Papias in fact a reliable source or else even less reliable than Eusebius?

I don't know who to trust. Papias said some pretty bizaare things, for example he believed that Judas' head expanded to the size of a chariot before exploding into a stinking mush. From the looks of things he was either dishonest or extremely credulous. At any rate I don't think he was a reliable historical source.

robindch

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I don't know who to trust.

Not an unreasonable position to take

Sapien

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look I believe she existed, I am just being ludicrous to make a point. At the end of the day we are still only believing reports. When it comes to historical figures there is no way to provided actually proof for any of their existences only strong evidence. And there is plenty of strong evidence that a Jesus who was viewed as the Christ existed even from non Christian records. But that is never accepted by those who just do not want Jesus to have existed.

You have either missed my point or dodged it. The hackneyed tactic of comparing skepticism of the historicity of Christ to a similar questioning of the existence of, say, Alexander the Great, is fundamentally silly. It would require a conspiracy of vast proportions to concoct the existence of such a figure and insinuate it into history. The conspiracy required, on the other hand, to invent Christ could have been relatively straightforward - requiring nothing more than a couple of blokes sitting around, stylus in hand, dreaming up their perfect saviour. Not that I believe that is what happened - I don't actually believe there was any (or much) intentional mendacity involved in the development of the Christ myth - but the point remains. To show that I am being hypocritical you would have to find some other similarly small, historically light-footed character in whom I believe unquestioningly. Rabid Christ-hater though I am, I tend to be consitent on such things, as are most others in my position, our inexplicable hostility towards your convictions aside.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you believe that the four Gospels accounts were dreamt up by different people in different places at different times for the purpose of???? What? How could they possibly have benefited from such an undertaking? Please show me what steps you took in order to arrive at this conclusion.

What conclusion? I believe Christ is a mythical figure, Soul Winner. Myths aren't simply "dreamt up". They are, however, eventually written down, often by different people, over periods of time, featuring conflicting details and varying fantastical claims.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The most common reason people do not believe the gospel accounts is simply because they contain miraculous events that cannot be explained in the natural. If Christ was God then the things He did are not a big deal really. If that is your basis for not believing the accounts then it is a pretty flimsy basis. Miracles happen all the time, they are no big deal to God. A God who can create the Universe from nothing is quite capable to doing the things ascribed to Him in the New Testament.

I'll assume the circular logic that spins wildly in that ratiocination is a conscious instantiation of faith, and so above such sub-lunar discussions as this, and beyond the abilities of my profane mind to engage.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the Gospel reporters were just liars only out to convince people about Jesus being the Son of God then why do they include all these outrageous stories that are so hard to believe?

Not liars - myth-makers and mystics.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are all the personalities traits of the Disciples interwoven with consistency by all the reporters?

I'm sure there are a lot of people contributing to this thread who know more about theories regarding the common sources behind the gospels.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is a thread on this forum asking Christians if they ever read anything that challenges their faith, well I wonder if there are any atheists who read anything that challenges theirs.

I was not born an atheist, nor was I immune to the religion of my parents as a child.

Pompey Magnus

Sapien wrote: »

I was not born an atheist, nor was I immune to the religion of my parents as a child.

We are all born as atheists, aren't we?

PDN

I'm not sure if there's much point debating history with someone who thinks Cleopatra lived 2000 years before Jesus, but let's try anyway.

Rashers wrote: »

The writings of four people? The contents of which cannot be proved, and they even disagree on several points.

The contents of any ancient document cannot be 'proved'. However, if we have a number of documents that confirm one another's main points then that is normally considered to be historical evidence.

Also, it is not just the writings of 4 people. For example, James, Peter and Jude were all contemporaries of Jesus Christ (2 of them were his brothers and one his disciple) and refer to him in their epistles. Therefore they also count as historical evidence.

When assessing secular historical evidence we do not rely on eye-witness testimony alone. For example, historians see the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny as evidence for the events they describe, even though they themselves were not eye witnesses. Therefore we can include as evidence the writings of people such as Paul and Clement of Rome.

Only four 'reporters' wrote the gospels. And the earliest was written at least 60 years after the alleged Jesus.

Absolute bunk. The vast majority of historians and biblical scholars agree that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written earlier than that.

The political power of the Holy Roman Church at that time? May I suggest a study of The Council of Nicea in AD 325.. and the politics and power struggles leading up to it... and following it?

Reading up on the Council of Nicea would, in my opinion, be very useful. We actually get ignorant bozos occasionally posting on this board who believe that the Council of Nicea determined the Books of the Bible and launched a crusade to destroy other books.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Reading up on the Council of Nicea would, in my opinion, be very useful. We actually get ignorant bozos occasionally posting on this board who believe that the Council of Nicea determined the Books of the Bible and launched a crusade to destroy other books.

I don't think Jesus would call such people ignorant bozos. It would be more constructive if you stated the fact that it is just not clear when Canon was finalised and possibly refered to the earliest historical listing of the books but of course this itself doesn't even mean it was finalised by then.

The word "ignorant" is usually used (although not always) when you don't know something you should, not when you don't know something that most people (including most Christians) don't know. It's a bit harsh in this context.

HammerHeadGym

There almost certainly was a historical Jesus. Probably more than one. In fact the name means 'enlightened saviour' or something close, so it is likely that every cell of freedom fighters and religous nutters in the middle east had at least one member called Jesus. Amalgamate these charcters and their deeds, add two heaped spoonfuls of religous dogma, change middle eastern skin to north European, add lies to taste, leave to stew for a couple of thoushand years and leave to cool.

Et viola- Jebus.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't think Jesus would call such people ignorant bozos. It would be more constructive if you stated the fact that it is just not clear when Canon was finalised and possibly refered to the earliest historical listing of the books but of course this itself doesn't even mean it was finalised by then.

The word "ignorant" is usually used (although not always) when you don't know something you should, not when you don't know something that most people (including most Christians) don't know. It's a bit harsh in this context.

The words 'ignorant' and 'bozo' are most certainly applicable when people want to engage in public discussion about historical events but draw their information from works of fiction such as the Davinci Code.

As for Jesus, you are quite correct that He never called anyone an ignorant bozo. Instead He called them a brood of vipers, children of satan etc.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

As for Jesus, you are quite correct that He never called anyone an ignorant bozo.

He went further than that:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

The words 'ignorant' and 'bozo' are most certainly applicable when people want to engage in public discussion about historical events but draw their information from works of fiction such as the Davinci Code.

The usage of the words are gratuitous. You could simple point out the current understanding simply and leave it at that.

As for Jesus, you are quite correct that He never called anyone an ignorant bozo. Instead He called them a brood of vipers, children of satan etc.

But would he call someone for making a historical error that? I doubt it.

Rashers

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We havent even touched on tacitus and Pliny.

Tacitus lived too far away from the events that supposedly took place in Galilee almost a hundred years before his birth to know about them first hand.


Now to Pliny.

Pliny the Younger. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan while serving as the governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111 to 113 CE, Pliny asks the emperor how to handle people caught in a witch hunt and accused of the crime of being Christian.

Pliny's letter fails to prove the existence of Jesus. First, the dates 112 to 113 do not coincide with the date of Jesus's alleged execution which supposedly took place in roughly 30 A.D. Secondly, as Pliny himself was born long after the alleged death of Jesus he would not have personal knowledge.

Josephus.

The passage in Josephus used to prove the existence of Jesus is a bit harder to pin down because Josephus lived in the right time, lived in the right area and perhaps most importantly, was Jewish. The passage often quoted as proof of the existence of Christ is believed by historians and bible scholars to have been inserted by a Roman Catholic bishop, Eusebius, in the fourth century A.D.

Eusebius was a historian in his own right, but the bishop was more concerned with proving the legitimacy of the early Roman Catholic church than he was in historical accuracy. When the passage believed to be inserted by Eusebius on Jesus is removed, the text that occurs in Josehpus's The Jewish War flows in context..

Little or no proof exists outside of the new testament that a historical Jesus existed.

To sum up on those you suggested, Tacitus and Pliny....

The writings of Tacitus and Pliny do not prove the existence of Jesus as these authors were born late in the first century of the current era.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would he call someone for making a historical error that? I doubt it.

To enter a debate and cite as 'facts' stuff one reads in a work of fiction such as The Davinci Code is not just 'making a historical error.' It is downright stupidity.

Imagine if I were to start posting on a board devoted to marine biology and I were to spout off about fish being able to talk because I saw it on Finding Nemo. I would richly deserve to be called much worse than an ignorant bozo.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

To enter a debate and cite as 'facts' stuff one reads in a work of fiction such as The Davinci Code is not just 'making a historical error.' It is downright stupidity.

Imagine if I were to start posting on a board devoted to marine biology and I were to spout off about fish being able to talk because I saw it on Finding Nemo. I would richly deserve to be called much worse than an ignorant bozo.

Imagine you were incapable of arguing logically so you used analogies and called people names. It's unclear when Canon was finalised, nobody knows for certain. There are bound to be opinions, poetic licenses, misunderstandings and confusions.

You could have pointed this out intelligently. You could, like I have said, pointed out what you perceived as error without the facile slur. This raises the question what motivated you to include the insult and subsequently defend it, especially when most would say that is out of character with the Christian ethos.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Imagine you were incapable of arguing logically.

Why would I imagine that ......?
No, I won't complete the sentence. Please don't tempt me like that again!


I used a straightforward analogy to illustrate that works of fiction do not make good source material for debate on factual subjects. Analogy is a useful teaching tool that which, while not applicable for formal logical proofs, is helpful in demonstrating the absurdity of many positions.

Incidentally, you employed an analogy yourself in asking whether Jesus would call someone an ignorant bozo.

There are clear historical accounts of the Council of Nicea and one thing that is abundantly clear is that it did not set the canon of scripture or unleash a crusade against Gnostic books etc.

I expressed my opinion in words that I felt were appropriate. If you don't like that then you may take it to Feedback if you wish.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I used a straightforward analogy to illustrate that works of fiction do not make good source material for debate on factual subjects. Analogy is a useful teaching tool that which, while not applicable for formal logical proofs, is helpful in demonstrating the absurdity of many positions.

It's a tool of sophistry because there is always something different between the different sets of particulars in the different arguments. For example, most people know fish don't talk, most people don't the history of Church and the Bible. In fact no-one knows the absolute history of Bible, there are gaps in what we know.

Incidentally, you employed an analogy yourself in asking whether Jesus would call someone an ignorant bozo.

No that wasn't an analogy. In both cases I was referring to the particular of someone calling someone an ignorant bozo. It was actually a syllogism.

Major Premise: Jesus wouldn't call someone for not knowing a complicated piece of history an ignorant bozo.
Minor Premise: PDN is a Christian and called someone an ignorant person for not knowing a complicated piece of history

Conclusion: PDN wasn't being very christian.

There are clear historical accounts of the Council of Nicea and one thing that is abundantly clear is that it did not set the canon of scripture or unleash a crusade against Gnostic books etc.

Yes put you should point that out rather than call someone names, it would make you a better teacher (that's what you are supposed to be isn't it?). If I were you, I would also point out that it's actually not clear when canon was set as this confuses a lot of people. Usually it's clear when book is written, edited and published.

Confusion arises over the Bible for three simple reasons:
1. It is a collection of books and not just a book.
2. There are different versions of it.
3. It just isn't 100% clear (although guestimates can be made) when the Canon was set and finalised.

I expressed my opinion in words that I felt were appropriate. If you don't like that then you may take it to Feedback if you wish.

There's no need for that. I am a forgiving atheist :-)

Fanny Cradock

Rashers wrote: »

The writings of Tacitus and Pliny do not prove the existence of Jesus as these authors were born late in the first century of the current era.

Proof? The accounts you mentioned, including that of Josephus, are evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. I'm not quite sure what would constitute proof for you. Though, from the stall you have set out, it seems clear that you will likely reject any form of evidence supporting Jesus. Your position on the matter is quite clear and well illustrated, for instance, by your instance on dismissing references merely because they were written some decades after Jesus' death.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no need for that. I am a forgiving atheist :-)

I am so happy to hear that:). Lets move on people, its a very interesting thread, lets not clutter it up needlessly.
Asia

Rashers

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Proof? The accounts you mentioned, including that of Josephus, are evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Hearsay evidence at best. A forgery at worst (in the case of parts of Josephus writing... see previous posts).

I'm not quite sure what would constitute proof for you.

Something much more than has been written. Definitely not hearsay evidence.

Though, from the stall you have set out, it seems clear that you will likely reject any form of evidence supporting Jesus.

I will accept evidence that cannot be refuted. So far in all of the research and study I've undertaken no such evidence appears to be in existance.

If a man who allegedly performed the miracles attributed to him actually did at one time walk this earth, one would imagine that the evidence of at least his existance would be overwhelming.

In fact there's none.

Your position on the matter is quite clear and well illustrated, for instance, by your instance on dismissing references merely because they were written some decades after Jesus' death.

Of course! If I wrote of someone who lived long before I was born, who I had never met, would you accept that as sufficient proof that this person had existed?

But let me set out my stall more clearly. What I am asking for is clear and hard proof that cannot be refuted that the man known as Jesus actually did exist.

Proof, real proof.

JCB

Rashers wrote:

What I am asking for is clear and hard proof that cannot be refuted that the man known as Jesus actually did exist.

Proof, real proof.

So essentially you are looking for a body.
How else can anyone achieve the level of proof you require?

Rashers wrote: »

I will accept evidence that cannot be refuted. So far in all of the research and study I've undertaken no such evidence appears to be in existance.

If a man who allegedly performed the miracles attributed to him actually did at one time walk this earth, one would imagine that the evidence of at least his existance would be overwhelming.

In fact there's none.

Interesting article adressing your claims:

Link wrote:

"That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church."

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:

As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed.

Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?

Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.

Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?

Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.

Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.

Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

JCB

Wikipedia wrote:

Nevertheless, non-historicity [of Jesus] is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians

Are you willing to effectively ignore the informed opinions of experts in this area, to support your conquest?

It's like arguing that Dinosaurs did not exist, even though the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.

Tell me, if we hadn't found fossils how otherwise would we know that dinosaurs existed?

Say we found some ancient cave-drawings from early man of dinosaurs, would you be willing to believe those? They certainly wouldn't be as conclusive as what you require though.

They would be 'eye-witness' accounts, such as those provided by the New Testament or very close to it. If you are not willing to accept what people who pertain to have met Jesus write then really what you are expecting is totally unreasonable.

Sapien

JCB wrote: »

Say we found some ancient cave-drawings from early man of dinosaurs, would you be willing to believe those?

Er... I think you need to brush up on your life-on-earth timeline. The only reason we believe in dinosaurs is the fossil record. As analogies go, that's an epic fail.

The apparent academic consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus is interesting, but one has to take the Emperor's New Clothes into account. There must be some urge to conclude that the object of ones discipline is more than myth parading as history. If there were real proof of Jesus having lived, I'm sure "effectively all Biblical scholars and historians" (I'm assuming that that's Biblical historians) would have something more to offer than a "Nevertheless". I would like to hear Michael Grant's examples of these "pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned". Perhaps others here who echoe this argument could suggest one or two. Once again - this is a very jaundiced, unconvincing, even puerile tactic in advocating the historicity of Christ: a combination of "that is soooo unfashionable right now", and "I bet you wouldn't say that about Simon Magus".