Evidence Jesus never existed:

Originally posted by sonship
Disagreement with you does not constitute dishonesty.

I never said not implied that it did. To suggest that was what I said is in itself dishonest of you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said not implied that it did. To suggest that was what I said is in itself dishonest of you.

To the OP -

The evidence that Jesus never existed IS ________________ ?
Sonhouse is waiting for your support.
Do you have some? Tell him if talking to me is boring or beneath you.

Originally posted by sonship
Sonhouse is waiting for your support.

Is he? I don't think so given that I explicitly contradicted him in my very first post.

If you wish to have a conversation then apologist for your dishonesty and pledge to hold an honest conversation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Is he? I don't think so given that I explicitly contradicted him in my very first post.

Yes, you did counter him on that first post. I think he is still hoping you'll come through with the evidence which you SAID is better.

Does this mean what it says?

I do think there are good arguments that Jesus may have never existed, but this is not one of them.

Or does it mean something else?
If it means what it seems to be saying then I bet sonhouse is waiting for your "good arguments" which are superior to the ones he offered. You said the real good stuff is elsewhere.

If you wish to have a conversation then apologist for your dishonesty and pledge to hold an honest conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said - disagreement with you does not constitute dishonesty as is demonstrated above.

Originally posted by sonship
I think he is still hoping you'll come through with the evidence which you SAID is better.

So you really? On what basis? What has he said or done to indicate that?

Like I said - disagreement with you does not constitute dishonesty as is demonstrated above.
So basically you repeating the dishonesty I pointed out above and pretending not to have read my response to it. Not exactly the best way to start an honest conversation is it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you really? On what basis? What has he said or done to indicate that?

[b]Like I said - disagreement with you does not constitute dishonesty as is demonstrated above.
/b]

Twhitehead wrote:

I do think there are good arguments that Jesus may have never existed, but this is not one of them.

I wrote:

I think he is still hoping you'll come through with the evidence which you SAID is better.

"I think" means its my opinion. No, I do not apologize for having an opinion.
No, I do not apologize for having this opinion or writing this opinion.


Why argue over what he really thinks?
The discussion is about "Evidence Jesus never existed"

I think, ie. I have an opinion that he is waiting for your better evidence (if his is not too good). No apologies from me on this. Sorry.

So basically you repeating the dishonesty I pointed out above and pretending not to have read my response to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, I am ignoring a red herring.

Not exactly the best way to start an honest conversation is it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have some better evidence the Jesus never existed, according to you -

I do think there are good arguments that Jesus may have never existed, but this is not one of them.

I honestly don't think there are realistic arguments that Jesus never existed.
As far as you and I talking is concerned, that can conclude the matter.
That is unless you propose some good arguments Jesus never existed.

As for honesty?
I don't think someone so biased for His non-existence in every way should put on a facade of unbiased objectivity about it.

The only other thing you have said so far which I think is worth consideration is about needing Roman writers who were not getting their information from Christians. If that is one of the better arguments I don't think it is realistic for a historian to not also derive some information from adherents to a belief.

Would an objective historian about Mormonism not include interviews with Mormons?

Having considered this a sophmoric argument, I don't even think Josephus was only taking down some kind of dictation from Christians. And Josephus, though a Jew, I am pretty sure became a Roman citizen.

He was considered a turncoat who threw his lot in with the conquerors.
And this is by memory. And I would have to re-visit the material to recall it more in detail.

Bottom line - Josephus - a Roman citizen writing about the historicity of Jesus.
And he is a respected ancient historian.

I wrote above

I don't think someone so biased for His non-existence in every way should put on a facade of unbiased objectivity about it.

I anticipate that you will demand an apology because I think you did say Jesus may have existed. That would not be "in every way" you hope He didn't exist, perhaps.

So the generalization may not hold that in every way you prefer Jesus (God become a man) did not exist or that Jesus not exist.

Anyway, the Talmud Jews who were no fans of Jesus seemed to indicate that He really lived. They were not Romans perhaps. But they thought Jesus lived and was the illegitimate child of Mary and some Roman soldier. Panthera - I think the name they gave to the soldier that they alleged was the father of Jesus.

They didn't say "Jesus? What Jesus? We never heard of any Jesus."

But they did say "Yea, we know that illegitimate child Jesus." [paraphrased with liberty]

It argues for the historicity of Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
"I think" means its my opinion. No, I do not apologize for having an opinion.
No, I do not apologize for having this opinion or writing this opinion.

More blatant dishonesty.
You are falsely implying that I suggested that you need apologize for having an opinion. What I actually did was ask how you formed that opinion. Instead of honestly addressing my query you chose to dodge with this false implication.

Why argue over what he really thinks?
Why bring it up at all given that you cannot know what he really thinks?

Basically, I am ignoring a red herring.
So when I point out that you have deliberately and maliciously implied that I have said something I haven't then its 'a read herring'?
And when you repeat that falsehood then your are merely 'ignoring a red herring'
Wow, you are a piece of work.

As for honesty?
I don't think someone so biased for His non-existence in every way should put on a facade of unbiased objectivity about it.
More dishonesty.
When have I ever put on a facade of unbiased objectivity?
All I have done is suggest an honest conversation.
I have no problem with bias. I have a problem with dishonesty.

Bottom line - Josephus - a Roman citizen writing about the historicity of Jesus.
And he is a respected ancient historian.
But he could not possibly have had first hand knowledge of the historicity of Jesus. All he actually wrote about was the beliefs of Christians (which is not disputed by anybody).
And you know this.

Originally posted by twhitehead

But he could not possibly have had first hand knowledge of the historicity of Jesus. All he actually wrote about was the beliefs of Christians (which is not disputed by anybody).
And you know this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a historian, unless he or she has firsthand knowledge of a person or event, is not to be trusted in their writing ?

Wouldn't that mean the dismissal of a large number of historical figures for whom historians do not have firsthand knowledge?

But he could not possibly have had first hand knowledge of the historicity of Jesus. All he actually wrote about was the beliefs of Christians (which is not disputed by anybody).
And you know this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who disputes that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived?
Give me someone in the first 1,000 years from first century CE.

You folks do not have to settle for tit for tat exchanges of two posters here.
Anyone wanting a good debate to make up your own mind on Jesus Mythicism verses Jesus a historical person -

Patrick Holding (Christian apologist) debates Kenneth Humphreys (Jesus Mythicist Atheist)

Did Jesus Exist? James Patrick Holding vs. Kenneth Humphreys

I recommend you skip up to 14:17. First 13 minutes not that relevant.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
So a historian, unless he or she has firsthand knowledge of a person or event, is not to be trusted in their writing ?

Wouldn't that mean the dismissal of a large number of historical figures for whom historians do not have firsthand knowledge?

Are you just acting dumb or are you really this dumb?

The historian in question can be trusted. But as I clearly stated multiple times, the only problem is that the historian in question does not report anything that is in dispute, so whether or not he can be trusted is irrelevant.

Originally posted by sonship
Who disputes that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived?

Me.

Give me someone in the first 1,000 years from first century CE.
No. There is no requirement for me to do that.

Originally posted by sonship

Who disputes that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived?
Give me someone in the first 1,000 years from first century CE.

Alternatively, provide some historical figure who 'supports the existence' of Jesus in the first 1,000 years from the first century CE. (Excluding the suspect Josephus Flavius).

'Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries. He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.' (Mailonline).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think anyone doubts that early Christians existed. In fact, I doubt anyone that has looked at the issue would doubt that Paul existed. So writers mentioning Christians and their beliefs does not, in any way, bolster the evidence that Jesus existed. Now if you could find a Roman source that did not get his information by way of Christians, then you might have a case. Execution or trial records perhaps.

Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community [of Christians].”
Will Durant, a historian, writer, and philosopher, wrote: “That a few simple men [the Gospel writers] should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Albert Einstein, a German-born Jewish physicist, asserted: “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” When asked if he viewed Jesus as a historical person, he responded: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.”

Michael Grant, a historian and an expert on ancient classical civilization, noted: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

So of all the people in the bible that are named, who do you actually believe existed? Do you have to see all their written records of birth and death to believe?