Jesusbots: Help me out

Originally posted by telerion
It's true. But my last post really was mean-spirited. Maybe I'll stick around and be your cheerleader.

Give me a D!

Smart Wife 😛

Originally posted by telerion
Ok. My wife just persuaded me to delete my last post. Guess I'm in a grump of a mood right now (even though things are going great on the research front!). Continue on. I'll go back to staying out of these forums.

Awww. I missed it. 🙁

Originally posted by telerion
In the end, the line from most of the pro-historical Jesus people in this thread has been first to repeat that they think somebody said something about it andsecond to appeal to the majority opinioin among experts, and thus choose to leave any criticisms to their position unaddressed. Instead they falsely claim that a dissenter must first prove an alternative. This is absurd, lazy, and generally deleterious to increasing understanding.

The problem is that DavidC's "criticism" is based solely on the fact that he will only accept extra-Christian historical documents as "proof", a standard of proof that he admits Socrates and Alexander would not pass. So:

Either he is inconsistent in his application of his standards, and he does not question the historicity of Socrates and Alexander

Or he is consistent and questions the existence of these two.

In either case, the "proof" he is asking for Christ's existence is something not even a historian would apply.

Originally posted by orfeo
The only issue is the barest facts about Jesus - whether or not there was a man of that name who, around the year 30AD, spent around three years travelling through Palestine preaching, got himself into trouble and was put to death.

Let me ask you this, orfeo...what do you make of the incredible similarities between, say, Jesus' life and that of the Osiris/Horus figure?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The problem is that DavidC's "criticism" is based solely on the fact that he will only accept extra-Christian historical documents as "proof", a standard of proof that he admits Socrates and Alexander would not pass. So:

Either he is inconsistent in his application of his standards, and he does not question the historicity of Socrates and Alex ...[text shortened]... he "proof" he is asking for Christ's existence is something not even a historian would apply.

At this point, LH, I'm not concerned with Socrates or Alexander. I've stated the same issues exist with both those icons as well. Neither are claimed by you and your brethren to be the key to my salvation.

I'm asking for the faithful to show me their extra-biblical references to Jesus. Most or all of them can be traced back to the late 2nd century apologists such as Eusebius and Tertullian, shortly before the power grab that was the first council. That they have been propogated since is no great surprise.

What do you make of the remarkable similarities between Jesus and Horus?

Originally posted by David C
At this point, LH, I'm not concerned with Socrates or Alexander. I've stated the same issues exist with both those icons as well. Neither are claimed by you and your brethren to be the key to my salvation.

I'm asking for the faithful to show me their extra-biblical references to Jesus. Most or all of them can be traced back to the late 2nd century apol ...[text shortened]... s no great surprise.

What do you make of the remarkable similarities between Jesus and Horus?

I don't know of the "remarkable" similarities between Jesus and Horus. Even if they are remarkable, they would make perfect sense to me as a Christian - after all, if Jesus is truly God, and God has revealed Himself to all human societies in one way or another, why shouldn't it make sense that the mythologies of some of these should be prophetic?

The point of Socrates and Alexander is a matter of consistency. As has been repeatedly pointed out, you are not just questioning the divinity or crucifixion or resurrection of Christ. You are questioning his very existence. This is a question of history, not theology. So, the standards you establish must make sense as standards for knowing about history. In which case, there is no valid reason to reject outright considering the Gospels (and I should add, the Apocryphal Gospels as well) as purely historical documents (though you need not accept them as factually accurate biographies).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know of the "remarkable" similarities between Jesus and Horus. Even if they are remarkable, they would make perfect sense to me as a Christian - after all, if Jesus is truly God, and God has revealed Himself to all human societies in one way or another, why shouldn't it make sense that the mythologies of some of these should be prophetic? ...[text shortened]... purely historical documents (though you need not accept them as factually accurate biographies).

I don't know of the "remarkable" similarities between Jesus and Horus. Even if they are remarkable, they would make perfect sense to me as a Christian - after all, if Jesus is truly God, and God has revealed Himself to all human societies in one way or another, why shouldn't it make sense that the mythologies of some of these should be prophetic?

Yes, do you see the illogic here? What seems more probable to you...

1) Story is told. 2000 years later, story is told again with different names and details contemporaneous with the times.

2) Story is told "prophesizing" events that will happen 2000 years in the future.

The point of Socrates and Alexander is a matter of consistency. As has been repeatedly pointed out, you are not just questioning the divinity or crucifixion or resurrection of Christ. You are questioning his very existence. This is a question of history, not theology. So, the standards you establish must make sense as standards for knowing about history. In which case, there is no valid reason to reject outright considering the Gospels (and I should add, the Apocryphal Gospels as well) as purely historical documents (though you need not accept them as factually accurate biographies).

Why does this irk you so? As a Jesusbot, you wouldn't be quite as upset if I said Jesus wasn't the Christ, but to say he never existed is somehow worse? Help me understand.

I'm not being inconsistant. I never brought up Socrates or Alexander. orfeo did. Why do you insist on reverting to some sort of "I know you are but what am I?" argument as a defensive mechanism?

Originally posted by David C
Yes, do you see the illogic here? What seems more probable to you...

1) Story is told. 2000 years later, story is told again with different names and details contemporaneous with the times.

2) Story is told "prophesizing" events that will happen 2000 years in the future.

Neither of which helps you in asserting that Jesus was not a real person. At best it shows that his followers attributed to him events taken from mythological events (and you have not produced any evidence to this - your entire argument is based on post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is actually a logical fallacy).

In terms of probability, the only way in which case (1) can be taken to be more probable than case (2) is if I assume a priori that prophecy is improbable, which is simply begging the question. As a matter of fact, since I do not consider prophecy impossible and I have good reason to believe that the Gospels are reasonably accurate depictions of the life of Christ (though not perfectly factually correct), I think the latter is more probable.

Why does this irk you so? As a Jesusbot, you wouldn't be quite as upset if I said Jesus wasn't the Christ, but to say he never existed is somehow worse? Help me understand.

This does not irk me as a Christian (your snide remark has not gone unnoticed). It irks me as a scientist.

I'm not being inconsistant. I never brought up Socrates or Alexander. orfeo did. Why do you insist on reverting to some sort of "I know you are but what am I?" argument as a defensive mechanism?

Well then, answer the simple question - do you think Socrates and Alexander were real historical people? If your answer is "No" (because you're being consistent) then, as orfeo points out, you're in the same class of people who believe that Man did not really walk on the moon and that GWB is an actor from the South.

Btw, what is the "I know you are but what am I" argument?

Originally posted by David C
I've already addressed the Tacitus reference, Pal. It was added sometime between Tacitus' era and de Spire's printing of Annals in 1468 C.E.

Pliny's letters to Trajan only indicates that by 113 C.E., there were "Christians". Again, the veracity of these passages is very doubtful, given the source (Eusebius, once again).

Suetonius referred ...[text shortened]... ace the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

How am I doing so far?[/b]

Tacitus:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacforg

Pliny:
Don't you think around 80 years is quite fast (at the time) for such an elaborate ploy of a fake Messiah to be set and followed by a sufficient number raise concerns?

For such a ploy, I would imagine it's much easier to pick one of the so-called Messiahs of that time that REALLY was executed and build from there.

Thallus:
The thing with Thallus is not proving that the darkness existed or not during the crucifixion. As an atheist I believe it didn't, but the fact is that the "he" that is mentioned by Africanus quotes of Thallus is clearly Jesus Christ:

"This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles"

Most of the records we have of the time are second hand, and you need to refute most of history of that time if you disconsider that type of evidence.


I look at both sides and see no reason to embark on conspiracy theories. If you think it's likely that a mythical Jesus could be concocted and followed by a significant number in less than 100 years in a time, I find it very unlikely.

Originally posted by telerion
Ok. My wife just persuaded me to delete my last post. Guess I'm in a grump of a mood right now (even though things are going great on the research front!). Continue on. I'll go back to staying out of these forums.

Don't worry, if it was directed to me I would like to see it. I'm not offended in forums, no matter what people say. Don't be hypocritically polite and say what you have to say.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by David C
[b]Yes, do you see the illogic here? What seems more probable to you...

1) Story is told. 2000 years later, story is told again with different names and details contemporaneous with the times.

2) Story is told "prophesizing" events that will happen 2000 years in the future.

Neither of which helps you ...[text shortened]... t GWB is an actor from the South.

Btw, what is the "I know you are but what am I" argument?[/b]

Neither of which helps you in asserting that Jesus was not a real person. [snip] I have good reason to believe that the Gospels are reasonably accurate depictions of the life of Christ .

Then your involvment in this thread amounts to trolling, since the question was evidence of extra-biblical reference to Jesus. There simply aren't any credible sources. May I point out that your post hoc ergo propter hoc is far more dubious than mine.

It irks me as a scientist.

Why is that? Surely you don't contend that the gospels are scientific proof of Jesus' existence.

Well then, answer the simple question - do you think Socrates and Alexander were real historical people? If your answer is "No" (because you're being consistent) then, as orfeo points out, you're in the same class of people who believe that Man did not really walk on the moon and that GWB is an actor from the South.

How many times do I have to restate this? I will claim agnosticism on the topic of Socrates and Alexander. I have not investigated the historical references to either figure. Trying to draw an analogy between moon landing conspiracists and my question are ludicrous and entirely disingenuous.

Btw, what is the "I know you are but what am I" argument?

Your dissatisfaction with my question is personal (irks you as a scientist, I believe you stated?), therefore you resort to attacks on my character.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Smart Wife 😛

Typical uneducated chauvanist.

Well, then again you are from Wyoming. How big is your harem again? No. Not that one. The one with humans in it.

Originally posted by telerion
Ok. My wife just persuaded me to delete my last post. Guess I'm in a grump of a mood right now (even though things are going great on the research front!). Continue on. I'll go back to staying out of these forums.

i was probably one of the few to read it before your wife persuaded you to edit it out. i rather liked the post the way it was. 😀

Originally posted by David C
Why is that? Surely you don't contend that the gospels are scientific proof of Jesus' existence.

They are a document, and therefore they are historical evidence. You may say they are not neutral (and I would agree), but to say they are not historical evidence is fallacious.

History at that time is made of patches and sketches, especially if it's about something non-governmental. It's perfectly normal that there aren't more references to Christ mad by his contemporaries. Is it that hard to imagine that Christ (if he existed) was most likely regarded as a crackpot by the Roman authorities? Why should he be documented until his cult became significant (e.g. Plyne)?

Either he is inconsistent in his application of his standards, and he does not question the historicity of Socrates and Alexander

Or whether or not he accepts the historicity of these two men is superfluous. It simply clouds the discussion.

For instance, I claim agnosticism as to the historicity of both Socrates and Alexander. In the face of that, your 'criticism' is exposed for the red herring that it is. This is not a discussion of either Socrates or Alexander. Cases for either could be presented at some other time. The grounds for these cases would surely be based on different evidence and so the strength of the argument for either of these figures does not bulster the case for Jesus. Right now, Jesus of Nazareth is on the table. Care to talk about him instead?

The problem is that DavidC's "criticism" is based solely on the fact that he will only accept extra-Christian historical documents

Sounds fair enough to me. I wouldn't accept a text from the LDS's "proving" that John Smith was actually directed by Moroni to golden tablets written in Ancient Egyptian.

And I sure as hell wouldn't accept anything from the cult that is the Catholic Church telling me that stigmata actually happens.

We have plenty of texts claiming that Zeus exists. Maybe we should accept those as well. Hell not all of them were written by cult members. Even the media of the time (playwrights) accepted it and wrote about it as fact.

David has simply pointed out known problems with the evidence. The fact that some sources were altered/augmented by later church leaders is known. This weakens evidence presented from leaders of the time. These are very fair criticisms.

If the historicity of Jesus is so obvious that to question it is "crackpot," then surely you can provide some alternative to sources written many years later by xtian church leaders? It really should be very easy if once again it is so obvious.

In either case, the "proof" he is asking for Christ's existence is something not even a historian would apply.

Have I not repeatedly stated that the notion of "proof" is a poor choice in this discussion? First, such a standard hasn't been yet defined. When are we confident that it has been "proven"? Shouldn't we instead simply lean toward the preponderence of evidence all the while maintaining a degree of ambivalence that is inversely related to the efficacy of said evidence?

Again I am, as yet, not in either camp on the issue. I just see one side doing some real thinking and the other playing games. I'd like to hear a solid case presented.

So far David has put forward reasons why the historicity of Jesus should be questioned. He has countered every evidence thus presented with standard objections from scholarship. As yet, no one has really engaged him. Some of you have danced around the subject, hoping to divert attention to irrelevant topics. A few other good 'Christians' have behaved rather un-Christlike as the term goes, but that's about it (Guess they weren't 'True Christians,' at least not right then).