you misrepresent again Stu. there is at a least one passage about Jesus in Josephus which is undisputed. why do you feel compelled to fabricate? -- I do not even understand you argument. First you say jesus is not a historical figure. When I provide historical proof by providing one of the times great historians... you are saying what. Josephus does not count as a historian of the times? Josephus is the historical record of the times... or one of the few. How many historical records from the time do we even have? I have read there are very few sources form 2000 years ago and they would fit on a small bookshelf in someones office. so your argument is the a joke. You want what youtube of the sermon on the mount from 2000 years ago?
stu is correct. while most atheists concede the point that a man named jesus who is the basis for the myth probably existed there is no evidence outside of the bible to support it. Did a historical Jesus exist? by Jim Walker originated: 12 June 1997 / additions: 12 Jan. 2008 Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus. ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
It's very straightforward Jem. Everyone knows there are countless verified historical records from Roman times before during and after Jesus was supposed to have been around. There are no verified historical records of Jesus. Why would you expect there to be when the Jesus character is a mythical figure? The fleeting reference Jospheus makes is not wholly undisputed, is only uncorroborated hearsay, which of course means it is not itself considered historical evidence for a bible type Jesus, or any other for that matter. Other Jospheus records are verifiable and confirmable from his own and other various corroborative sources. The tiny Josephus / Jesus writing is not and most has been established as forgery anyway inserted by exuberant christians. Even now the same sort of over excitable Christians grasp at a few lines of dubious text because there is actually no historicity for Jesus.
Your b.s. always lack support.. I would like to see you produce this mound of non evidence you pretend exists. However, you do not have to take my word for it. from wikipedia... The Historical Jesus is a reconstruction of Jesus using modern historical methods. Paul Barnett pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognized the 'subjectivity' factor in their available sources" and "have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand." He noted that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.[96] In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigmâthe available sources tell us much about Alexanderâs deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."[97] Thus, Sanders considers the quest for the Historical Jesus to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation. Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades after Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.[98] In contrast, Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity, at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself."[99]. He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed".[100] Recent research has focused upon the "Jewishness" of the historical Jesus. The re-evaluation of Jesus' family, particularly the role played after his death by his brother James,[101] has led scholars like Hans Küng to suggest that there was an early form of non-Hellenistic "Jewish Christianity" like the Ebionites, that did not accept Jesus' divinity and was persecuted by both Roman and Christian authorities. Küng suggests that these Jewish Christians settled in Arabia, and may have influenced the story of Christ as portrayed in the Qur'an[102]. [edit] Jesus as myth Further information: Christ myth theory and Jesus Christ and comparative mythology The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103] The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104] More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price. The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109] [edit] See also
You are so full of shit. You know someone is full of shit when they say stuff like everyone knows but cite to no one. But here wikipedia calls the jesus as a myth people crackpots. (read the last 3 sentences.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103] The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104] More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price. The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]
Here scholars cited in wikipedia call the "jesus as a myth" people crackpots. (read the last 3 sentences.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103] The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104] More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price. The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis"" Stu do you realize all your arguments are swiss cheese arguments.
read it for yourself, the Jews agitated and the Romans acquiesced. Jesus wasn't guilty of much under Roman law, maybe the Romans feared that he was a revolutionary and they went with the Jews.. Nothing against Jews for doing that, it's the way the world is, any and all of the Jew haters could have done exactly same thing, they just weren't chosen to produce the messiah, that's all...