sheesh that was fast Ricter. You must have been up all night waiting to pounce with that one Funny how you didn't first enquire if Jem might have a cut&paste terror bot he makes so many claims by them all over the place. You're not appearing too objective this morning dude. Tired or something?
Jem is flexible. He believes in a creator but will accept that the process of evolution exists. You are not flexible. It's as if you think admitting that there probably was some dude named Jesus way back when means you'll then have to admit there is a god and the universe was created in six days. In that sense you are the mirror opposite to the guy who thinks if he admits evolution is real would then have to admit that god does not exist. You're both wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280334377&sr=1-1 "Here's your chance for glory: Produce a good, sound argument that the Jesus Christ featured in the New Testament gospels is the same individual as the Jesus Christ whom the NT epistle authors have in mind. Do this and you will be the first person in history to accomplish this task. In his book "The Jesus Puzzle", Earl Doherty demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. No such person ever existed. The notion may be shocking to the general populace, but it is not a new idea, and has been endorsed by a minority of scholars for over a century. The best evidence comes from the Christian writers themselves. The New Testament epistles and most of the non-canonical literature until the mid-2nd century show a resounding silence on the earthly life of Jesus. No teachings or miracles. No references to Mary, Joseph, the disciples or the holy places, such as Bethlehem, Nazareth and Calvary. No trial or details of the passion story. And so on. Scholars try their best to explain this phenomenon, but this degree of silence from so many writers over so many years has one and only one adequate explanation: the writers ignore Jesus's life on earth because they don't KNOW of a life on earth. Jesus Christ started out as an entirely divine being, just like all the other gods in all the other religions of the day. The idea that he lived a full, human life was a later development in Christian mythology which gradually caught on, proved to be popular and eventually became standard orthodox belief. Another problem with the traditional view of Christian origins is the wide diversity of expressions shown in the early Christian record. These are unlikely to have stemmed from the life of a highly-revered human founder. "Rather, Christianity was born in a thousand places, in a host of different forms, growing out of the broad, fertile religious soil of the time." (Page 139). Doherty considers (and refutes) the various attempts people make to prove a historical Jesus, including the infamous forgery in the writings of historian Josephus and the handful of vaguely-phrased epistle passages which, on the surface, have a "human" sound to them, but in fact can apply equally to divine beings. The author has a website, and I have put him to the test by discussing his work on the Web with people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I. Most disagree with Doherty's views (sometimes throwing tantrums in the process!), but when they try to present a convincing argument to the contrary, they can't do it. They don't even come close. At best, they will nail him on an insignificant technicality. Too often people read the epistles with gospel-tinted glasses. The Great Silence is carefully examined, but the book offers much more. There is a lot of general education material which is great for the average reader. We get an introduction to the philosophies of the time, such as Platonism and Cynicism. Doherty closely examines the lost document of Q and considers the similarities between Jesus and the competing savior gods, such as Attis, Osiris, Dionysos and Mithras. He describes the universe as perceived in those days and the spiritual realm where Jesus and the other gods operate. And we are treated to several passages which managed to escape Christian censorship and show without question that the authors do not have in mind a human Jesus executed under Pilate. There's very little in the way of weak points. At times Doherty may exaggerate the significance of a particular silence. And I'm a bit uneasy with some of the assumptions and speculations in Parts 5 and 6 concerning the Q document and Christian origins. But none of this is harmful to the overall case. Doherty is a fine writer, is very well-read and does not depend on sources of dubious reliability. Now, there IS one significant hurdle which the author may never overcome. It's not deficient arguments, but rather human nature. For scholars to admit that Doherty is right means to admit they've been under a monumental misconception for their entire careers. Time will tell whether they have the courage and dignity to do this. Read, learn and spread the Good News to your friends! If justice is served, this book will change the world."
You're not making any sense Ricter. Evolution is nothing to do with creation or a creator. Saying you accept the process of evolution works and you believe in a creator is not about flexibility. It's about irrelevance. Show me some normal historical evidence for the "Jesus dude" . The same standard of evidence that already substantiates endless other people places and events as being historical , and I will humbly accept it as so, along with many other people who just simply ask for that evidence. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong, it's one way to learn stuff. Religious apologists have always made the claim that Jesus actually existed and is therefore not fictional. Where is the usual historicity that backs up such claims.? There is NONE. There never has been. You want to ignore that fact.... for what reason? Because you'd have to admit to something?
Well, admittedly I am operating under the assumption that you are certain there was no Jesus, because there is no evidence there was one. Is my assumption correct?
So more accurately you think it "vastly probable there was no Jesus". That makes you agnostic, as I understand the term, and we actually have no argument. I'd have to go back through the thread to find where I got my mistaken idea, but won't bother, I made the error.
richter - you fell for Stu's bullshit. he asks you to accept his argument is reasonable. But he is asking you to accept that his standard for historical is reasonable. His standard is rejected as a joke by period scholars... His standard might work for JFK or FDR. His standard is not the standard used by historians for that period of time. --- We are dealing with very limited sources for that period of time to start. (not mountains of evidence as Stu pretends). Next we know there would have been a shit load of evidence destruction by both Christians and anti christians. so when you come out of those filters Is is really quite remarkable that we have 4 ancient non christian texts which reference jesus or his followers. and place him at the right points of history. Sometimes with Pilate. We also have the texts stu discounts because they are "religious". But those gnostics texts and all the bible accounts are very old and some are pretty close in time to being written by eye witnesses. Technically just the fact Jesus an his followers are referenced in 2 passages in Josephus and one of those passages is undisputed would be enough to say Jesus is a historical person. Ask him how it is possible a respected jewish historian would make note of Jesus and his followers just a few years after jesus' death and not state that Jesus' existence is a hoax if Jesus had not been a person. Stu's argument is the hoax. Remember there is a passage in Josephus which is not disputed. You watch Stu evade. Stu will reference the disputed passage and ignore the undisputed one.
I'm not sure what I fell for, jem. I thought Stu was arguing (I'll make it a syllogism, I think it's a fair format): All things that exist have evidence. There is no evidence of a Jesus, Therefore there was no Jesus. I trust I do not have to point out the error there. But apparently that is not Stu's argument. I'll be vague, Stu can assign his own level of intensity: All things that exist have evidence. There is no evidence of a Jesus, Therefore there may have been no Jesus. I'm comfortable with the second conclusion, even though I personally think it's probable there was 'some kind' of Jesus, if not divine, at least a young radical who called for a break from the dead edicts of Judaism, and the chains of Roman imperialism, and got himself killed over it. Nothing really implausible about that story, so far as it goes.
but that is the point... using standards which professional historians overwhelmingly accept.... there is evidence that there was a person named Jesus who had some followers. Being 2000 years old and being mentioned in an undisputed passage of the jewish scribe Josephus is powerful evidence.