You will be A-thei-ssimilated.

[Crackpot]

There's alot of evidence the "lack" of evidence only comes in if you decide to completely discout all "religious" sources and decide all the periferal characters would uniformly act in a completely irrational manner. (irrational being used in the literal sense meaning the absense of any rational thought. Completly fucking bonkers just doesn't seem to accurately describe how completly insane it is.)

[thestoat]

Well religious sources would mention him, of course. Maybe I am judging things by today's standards: Secular and atheist writings will acknowledge the existence of the various popes. If I were to try to understand someone, I would talk to bystanders - not that persons mother I just find it very odd

[Crackpot]

That's what Luke did. (he wasn't there)

(ignore (or don't) accidental post and I decided to take a different tact)

[Crackpot]

Part of the problem is the consolidation of Sources another is the relative shortness of his ministry. So secualr Sources heally didn't have time to take note. Before his death Jesus' following was relatively small and a extremely local sect of a religion that most of the world didn't understand and would hardly be seen as different than Judaism. (which is why it was allowed to even exist in the Roman Empire)

If I were to try to understand someone, I would talk to bystanders - not that persons mother I just find it very odd

THere is a large difference between taking someones word biased account of a story and debating that someone didn't actually exist. THe alternative to the existance of Jesus (as a man) just doesn't survive Occams Razor it would take just too much of a grand conspiracy to fabricate what is known about the events following Jesus' death to postulate that he was invented from whole cloth. The existance of the man be he divine or huckster is far more simple than the myriad of hoops you'd have to jump through in order to arrive at an adequate expalination from the person as a whole being a myth.

[thestoat]

I suspect you are right with Occam's Razor, CP, though British footballers could take lessons from the media blackout surrounding his existence

[Gob]

Interesting isn't it, that we have multiple historical accounts,and confirmations, of some of Jesus's contemporaries, eg. Ptolemy, or even people from earlier epochs, eg Aristotle, Euclid, but none of him.

And yet Jesus could walk on water, cure illness by touch, raise the dead, and most impressive of all, turn water into wine, ( a big hit at parties.)

As I have said many times before, as a PR stunt, god bollocked the whole thing.

[Crackpot]

I never new Jesus' coming was intended as a PR stunt Gob

[Gob]

That's my take on it mate.

God wanted PR for the way he wanted us to behave, so he sent himself down as his son, etc etc...

[Scooter]

Interesting isn't it, that we have multiple historical accounts,and confirmations, of some of Jesus's contemporaries, eg. Ptolemy, or even people from earlier epochs, eg Aristotle, Euclid, but none of him.

Aristotle, to pick one of your examples, left behind his own published works, which were then disseminated and discussed by others in their own publications. So sources about Aristotle's published work are plentiful, but sources about his life are few, fragmented and inconsistent (not unlike the gospels ). Biographies of Aristotle rely primarily on two sources, Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the 1st century BCE (300 years after his death!), and of Diogenes Laertius in the 3nd century CE. No one cared to write about the life of Aristotle until the importance of the work he left behind was recognized. Who, other than Christians, would have cared enough about the life of Jesus to write about it?

It should also be noted that there are very few non-Arabic sources referring to Muhammed in the first few hundred years after his death, and even those few relied on Arabic sources. Yet while one can dispute specifics, I've never heard anyone question his very existence.

[Scooter]

Crackpot, before you read something into this post that isn't there, please refer to my previous post. I am NOT denying the historicity of Jesus. I am only replying to the leaps in logic and plain error I saw in your post.

Part of the problem historically is that the Roman Catholic church gained so much power that they were able to edit and or stamp out most extra biblical sources for Jesus in order to "control the message"

Oh please. And how could this possibly be known? The Church went around purging references to Jesus in non-Christian writings (I assumed you meant that rather than non-biblical, since a plethora of apocryphal writings have survived), and then, what? Documented for posterity the fact that they had altered history?

The irony being that the only reason for the survival of the one independent non-biblical historical account of Jesus probably only survived because it was coupled with a fake one

Josephus is not the only non-Christian reference to Jesus. Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus also mention him. And if the Roman Church was on a crusade to "control the message", then surely the reference in Suetonius would have been purged, because he puts the blame for Jewish rioting in Rome (Christianity would not yet have been recognized as a distinct sect) on the "instigation of Christ".

And none of these sources is independent. They ALL rely on Christian sources because there would not have been any other kind. Did someone go around interviewing inhabitants of Galilee and Samaria who were not followers of Jesus, in order to get information about him? To what end?

BTW, I'm curious, since we know the Church went on this rampage of historical revisionism to "control the message", why treat Josephus as any kind of an authority? It's not as if we have his orginal manuscript, and it's clear that along the way there have been some Christian interpolations. Wouldn't it have made sense for the Church to doctor his work along with all the rest?

While he was not mentioned in non religious histories much, his contemporaries are. Acts alone contains many names of different Roman officials that have been historically verified to the proper time and place.

What does that prove? That the NT writers knew the names of the people who had governed them? So what?

By your logic, Scarlett O'Hara must be a real person, because Gone with the Wind is chock full of reference to actual people, places and events associated with the Civil War (Abraham Lincoln, Generals Sherman and Lee, the burning of Atlanta, etc., etc.). All that means is that Margaret Mitchell wrote her book against a historical backdrop. Why couldn't the NT writers have done the same)?

Not to mention most (if not all) of the apostles (including Paul) have been externally verified.

You have got to be kidding. Externally verified by what? Their supposed relics? Relics have been a dime a dozen throughout Church history; just because it says those are St.Peter's bones buried under the basilica bearing his name, doesn't mean it's so.

In the very least in regards to their deaths which points out their willingness to die for their belief which is unlikely (on scale) if they knew they were preaching about someone they knew not to exist.

What non-Christian account reports the martyrdom of Peter? Of Paul? Of James? Of Andrew? Of any of the apostles? Does any non-Christian source even name them?

So in conclusion While it is reasonable to doubt Jesus' divinity. The outright denial of his existence isn't.

Nor is it reasonable to affirm his existence with this tripe.

[thestoat]

Scooter, some excellent points made there. Just got an answer to one of your questions ...

Who, other than Christians, would have cared enough about the life of Jesus to write about it?

Well me for one. If I knew of a bloke who could turn water in to wine, feed thousands with a little bread and a couple of fish (it doesn't say "5 loaves and 2 whales"), walk on water, etc I'd be well interested and be writing about him all the time

[Scooter]

You could have only found out about it through word of mouth (no newspapers or other journalistic media). So unless you got it directly from an eyewitness, instead of fifth or sixth hand, you're going to write it off as a "my friend has an aunt who found a severed finger in a can of soup" story. Assuming you had reason to believe it to be true, how would you verify it, by dropping your life and heading off on a months long journey to Galilee to interview witnesses? And what corroboration could they offer - wine's gone, we drank it, bread and fish are gone, we ate it, and he didn't leave footprints on the lake when he walked on it? And you'd write about it for what audience? Why would anyone believe you?

[thestoat]

Good points Scooter - can you believe they didn't even have dial up internet access then

[thestoat]

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus also mention him

Where did you find that, Scooter? I found some article stating

these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus so I would be interested in your sources

And one other thing that just occurred to me...

You could have only found out about it through word of mouth

Apart from the 5,000 fed by him and countless others who actually witnessed a miracle, yet none wrote it down (at least in a surviving form). I know literacy was limited then, but some of them would have been able to write. I just find it odd..

[Scooter]

I brought those references up, not because they provide any great insight into the historical Jesus, but because they are nevertheless references that survived the "purge" allegedly undertaken by the Church to "control the message" about Jesus. If such a purge had happened, there is no reason why these references should have survived, particularly if they were unflattering.

I don't want to get into a debate about the historicity of the miracle stories, which I don't believe to be attempts to recount history, but assuming that the feeding of the 5,000 was historical fact, how many of those 5,000 would have had a clue any miracle had taken place? A few people whose business it was to know went up to Jesus and said, "these measly few loaves and fish aren't going to come close to being enough to feed everyone", Jesus multiplies them, and all that most of the crowd sees are baskets full of food continuing to be distributed among them, without any clue as to how it was procured. And let's say that they did know, and that several hundred of them wrote something about it - a personal diary, a letter to a friend, etc. How likely is it that any of those writings would have survived the expulsion of the Jews from Galilee and Judea only a few decades later? How many writings of any kind from that time and place survived long enough to be referenced in some subsequent work?

[Crackpot]

Oh please. And how could this possibly be known? The Church went around purging references to Jesus in non-Christian writings (I assumed you meant that rather than non-biblical, since a plethora of apocryphal writings have survived), and then, what? Documented for posterity the fact that they had altered history?

Admittendly it is an assumption based on knowledge of the many "purges" of "heracies" the Church has taken part in at various times throughout its history.

Josephus is not the only non-Christian reference to Jesus. Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus also mention him. And if the Roman Church was on a crusade to "control the message", then surely the reference in Suetonius would have been purged, because he puts the blame for Jewish rioting in Rome (Christianity would not yet have been recognized as a distinct sect) on the "instigation of Christ".

I have never studies the others nor could I remember them off hand. so I confined my response to what I know.

And none of these sources is independent. They ALL rely on Christian sources because there would not have been any other kind. Did someone go around interviewing inhabitants of Galilee and Samaria who were not followers of Jesus, in order to get information about him? To what end?

It's hard to say depending on what information was given. Surely any account calling him the messiah would have been christian but as for the blurb noting the relation while speaking of James death?

BTW, I'm curious, since we know the Church went on this rampage of historical revisionism to "control the message", why treat Josephus as any kind of an authority? It's not as if we have his orginal manuscript, and it's clear that along the way there have been some Christian interpolations. Wouldn't it have made sense for the Church to doctor his work along with all the rest?

As I said it's the one I'm familiar with and I don't hold much creedence to the passage that calls Jesus the Messiah heck Josephus was thought of as a tale teller who made up stories out of whole cloth in order to inflate the historical position of the Jews until they rediscovered Masada complete with remnants of the Roman seige that broke the stronghold.

While he was not mentioned in non religious histories much, his contemporaries are. Acts alone contains many names of different Roman officials that have been historically verified to the proper time and place.

What does that prove? That the NT writers knew the names of the people who had governed them? So what?

[/quote]

Here I'm speaking directly to Acts which takes place all over the meditrainian and names many different officials from many different places accurately. This shows that the paths spoken of was likely taken at the time as the names we not likly know outside of their little patches of land.

By your logic, Scarlett O'Hara must be a real person, because Gone with the Wind is chock full of reference to actual people, places and events associated with the Civil War (Abraham Lincoln, Generals Sherman and Lee, the burning of Atlanta, etc., etc.). All that means is that Margaret Mitchell wrote her book against a historical backdrop. Why couldn't the NT writers have done the same)?

How about names like Richard Notte or Mark Hackel?

Not to mention most (if not all) of the apostles (including Paul) have been externally verified.

You have got to be kidding. Externally verified by what? Their supposed relics? Relics have been a dime a dozen throughout Church history; just because it says those are St.Peter's bones buried under the basilica bearing his name, doesn't mean it's so.

There are Roman records of executions and imprisonments.

[thestoat]

lo's gone quiet. That's unusual.

[Rick]

I know literacy was limited then, but some of them would have been able to write. I just find it odd..

Although many secular historians use it I can understand yer loathe to accept the Bible as written material...

[Sean]

I know literacy was limited then, but some of them would have been able to write. I just find it odd..

Although many secular historians use it I can understand yer loathe to accept the Bible as written material...

I suspect that any secular historians who use the Bible would use it as a cultural reference guide as opposed to a historical guide Keld.

[loCAtek]

Hi stoat, had a short vacation; and had to finish end of the month business, before a holiday weekend to boot, but it was nice you missed me.

1. Jesus didn't exist
I have a genuine question here - are there many references to him outside of the bible? I know of none - but I wouldn't really. I had read there were very few (if any). Anyone?

Jesus is mentioned frequently in the Qur'an by Mohammed.

2. Religion is dependent on indoctrination
In part that is UTTERLY TRUE and I believe you would be foolish not to understand that. I know many who are religious simply because their parents were and have no answer when I ask them why they believe in a god. There are others who have thought about it, like Timster, and I respect the hell out of that, but it is nonsense to refute that indoctrination has no bearing on religion

Humans 'hardwired for religion'
There are many cases of children raised in atheist homes becoming religious, perhaps most famously Akiane Kramarik, an 8 yer old child prodegy who sees spiritual visions and paints them exquisitely. Her faith is so powerful she's converted her parents.

3. Most war and conflicts are based on religion
I think many of them are. Most - I don't know - but certainly a load have religious elements to them

In their Encyclopedia of Wars,[2] authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall, [Since the Fall of Jericho c. 8000 B.C.E.] of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.

[/quote]

4. religion hinders development of society.
Yup. Why would you refute that? Go look at some of the Muslim states that suppress women because of religion and then revisit the statement

Are you familiar with the Ottoman Empire? The Muslim rule of Europe was what pulled it out the Dark Ages.

5. Humans are born atheist
Interesting - I haven't considered that one. I don't think it is true - humans like to worship unknown powers and have done through history. It is only in the last couple of thousand years that those unknown powers have been used to subjugate

6. There is no existence outside of living matter
Utter bollocks. Rocks exist outside of living matter

Okay, guess we agree on these two.