The idea or the person

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am Zambian and live in South Africa. Zambia is largely Christian and has been for the past 100 years or so. There has been no major changes that I am aware of in my life time. It has a rather small population though, so might not count in the larger scheme of things.
I currently live in South Africa. Here in Cape Town, there are as many mosques as chur ...[text shortened]... ake on the religion of their parents. But there are religions other than Christianity in Africa.

Christianity is growing in the slums in Cape Town. Thousands. I have friends there. The gospel is growing primarily among the poor and impoverished of the world.

Originally posted by AppleChess
I still hold that secular sources confirm his existence.

Secondary sources written decades or even centuries after the events they refer to simply repeat claims that have been made and do not "confirm" the "existence" of anything other than the aforementioned claims. Josephus had no primary sources to base his claims on, other than the bits of the Bible that purport to describe Jesus' life, which were themselves written decades after his death by people intent on establishing a new/breakaway religion.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Christianity is growing in the slums in Cape Town. Thousands. I have friends there. The gospel is growing primarily among the poor and impoverished of the world.

I think that you would find that the vast majority of slum dwellers in question were already Christian.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence. I have Josephus's works sitting on the shelf in the other room-highlighted and marked where he referred to him. Josephus was a Jew-not a Christian. Jesus was a damnable heretic to Josephus. He mentioned him as part of history.

You also don't seem to have a ver ...[text shortened]... people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

Try reading Richard Carrier, http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264

A book that is pretty much the only correctly reasoned and peer reviewed treatise on the subject.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You believe Alexander lived? Well there is more historical evidence for Christ than Alexander. Only a fool would deny that the Christ is a real historical personage.

Actually none of that is true, their is virtually no evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed,
and plenty of evidence for Alexander the Great.

Furthermore, Alexander the Great was simply a brilliant general and military leader.
Such people have clearly existed throughout history and it is totally unextraordinary that
such people existed [and indeed still exist].

Jesus on the other hand is supposedly the son of god. A mythical being to kick off with.
And is supposed to have performed miracles [magic] and done many extraordinary things
including rise from the dead. We have no evidence that any of those things happened, and
we need considerable evidence to justify believing that such extraordinary claims are true.

Originally posted by AppleChess
"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].

Given that Christian evangelism is largely responsible for the recent upsurge in anti-gay
laws and persecution in Christian Africa, [as well as the Catholics doing everything
possible to sabotage birth control leading to increased aids transmission among other
harms] I am going to remain convinced that Christian evangelism in Africa [and everywhere
else] is both harmful, and spreading untruth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can expect such nonsense from googlefudge for he is a self declared atheist numbnuts. 😏

No, no I am not.

Self declared means that I have stated I am a numbnuts, which I have never done.

YOU have called me, and everyone else who disagrees with you, to be a numbnuts at
various points. Mainly as a failed attempt at deflection away from your own stupidity.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Keep in mind, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

YES IT IS

This meme really has to die, it's total bunk.

If you have an absence of evidence for a claim being true then it is more likely that the claim is not true.
Therefore an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It may well not be strong evidence, depending on how much expected evidence their should be and
how hard and effectively it's been searched for. But it can also be quite strong evidence.

Either way, an absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

What it is not is PROOF of absence.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Christianity is growing in the slums in Cape Town. Thousands. I have friends there. The gospel is growing primarily among the poor and impoverished of the world.

Christianity is growing in the slums in Cape Town. Thousands. I have friends there.
The gospel is growing primarily among the uneducated and vulnerable of the world

fixd

Originally posted by AppleChess
Thank you for your post. You are equating words with ideas I guess?

Certainly we are called to heed Christ's words. Yet, Christ's words were to bear witness of the truth (John 18:37) and Christ is the truth (John 14:6).

I mean this kindly, but I think you misunderstand the application and proper order of faith. [b]Faith is not so much in what Chri ...[text shortened]... icance.

Jesus came to bear witness of himself-his words attest of himself. It is the person.

I think it is you who is mistaking words for ideas. Your words are bereft of any.
.
Quoting bible verses in no way substantiates your claim of the importance of a Christ.

Telling me that I do not understand faith is irrelevant to the discussion so please do not side-track.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Have you been to Africa?

Have you read Matthew Parris?

Have you been to Africa? YES

Have you read Matthew Parris? NO

Originally posted by AppleChess
A closing comment-"The fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion."

Can we assume that Islam is not counted as an 'ancient religion' in that comment?
It is interesting though that you put so much emphasis in your post on comparing the evidence for Jesus with evidence for other historical (or not so historical as the case may be) events.
Why would that be important? Are you assuming that everyone accepts the historicity of the other events? If not, then it seems to me that such comparisons demonstrate nothing.

Originally posted by AppleChess
I'm also very much aware that it is a favorite tactic to discredit sources originating from Christian scholars. Some of my cited sources will be Christian Scholars (Craig Blomberg as an example). I find this tactic a gross mark of academic dishonesty.

If a source is quoted as an 'authority' whose opinion is to be taken as fact without substantiating argument, then it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to dismiss as invalid any author who is biased by his religion to give a specific opinion. So in that situation it is not 'academically dishonest' as you claim.
If you quote a Christian scholar with substantiating argument by that scholar, then that is perfectly acceptable.
However, it seems much of your argument relies on claims from consensus - which you do not back up with any actual statistics or any other way by which we can verify them. I for one would want to exclude from any consensus argument all authors that have a religious stake in the matter as bias is to be expected.

Originally posted by AppleChess
On the contrary-the evidence is overwhelming.

Let's just be clear here-let's have a amiable discussion. I've perused a little through this forum and things get rather messy at times. When you throw mud, all you do is lose ground. Giving and receiving criticism graciously is a mark of academic honesty.

I'm also very much aware that it is a favorite ...[text shortened]... Ibid.
(vi) M. Wilcox, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
(vii) Edwin Yamauchi

All of these are AT BEST secondary sources.

NONE of these is a primary source, text written by JC himself, or by independent witnesses during his
supposed lifetime.

None of these are any kind of convincing evidence, let alone proof, of JC's existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a source is quoted as an 'authority' whose opinion is to be taken as fact without substantiating argument, then it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to dismiss as invalid any author who is biased by his religion to give a specific opinion. So in that situation it is not 'academically dishonest' as you claim.
If you quote a Christian scholar with subs ...[text shortened]... sensus argument all authors that have a religious stake in the matter as bias is to be expected.

It should also be noted that there is no consensus in this field.

There are two, ~roughly equal in size/noise, camps that vehemently disagree with one another.

Both of which have people making really bad arguments for their side.

I recommend Richard Carrier who has written two books, Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus.

To quote the wiki

"... he became interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus, authoring two books on the subject,
Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus. These books explain and utilize a historical methodology that
employs Bayes' theorem for the purpose of historical inquiry; specifically within the context of Jesus studies.

.......

Carrier's first major book, Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, published in
2012 by Prometheus Books, describes the application of Bayes' theorem to historical inquiry in general and the
historicity of Jesus of Nazareth in specific.

In June 2014, Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt was published by Sheffield
Phoenix Press. He has claimed that it is "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected
academic press and under formal peer review.""

http://www.richardcarrier.info/jesus.html