Pagan Myths=Judeo, Christian, Islamic, religion.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

@Hijiri Byakuren: These scholars not only explored the work of 'secular' scholars, but also the work of archaeology.

They start with a conclusion and find evidence to support it; this is the opposite of science. It does not matter what they have "explored" if their methodology was flawed from the get-go.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If you don't believe that the historical accounts about Jesus are accurate, then you have to cease to believe that other historical accounts, such as the accounts of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, are also fabrications.
Before the historical accounts of Jesus were written down, they were preserved through a very reliable oral tradition while Jesus' followers were still performing their ministries. Moreover, the Gospels were written during the lifetimes of Jesus' closest followers. Furthermore, the writings of Paul can be dated earlier than Mark's Gospel and are very well validated by modern scholars.

We could argue all day as to why Jesus is different from pagan deities, but it really comes down to the simple fact that Jesus' Resurrection stands apart from all pagan mystery religions.

Nonsense.

The actions of those and countless thousands of others are written and corroborated by countless testimonies from people at the time. Unlike the myth of Jesus where nobody even wrote about him for several decades after he supposedly died, people at the time we writing about the men (such as Caesar) and their escapades. The Romans were very good at documenting things.

You can go to the roman forum in Rome anytime you want and see busts and graffiti of Caesar, and that's not even mentioning all the other corroborating evidence that easily satisfies the question as to whether he existed.

You keep saying 'modern scholars'. Cite examples. Who are they? What have they written? Where can we find their texts so we may validate them ourselves?

Just asserting that the Jesus myth is true doesn't make it so. You need to stop using fallacious reasoning and start admitting that your beliefs are based on un-evidenced faith.

If Jesus did not exist, then Alexander the Great did not exist and thus the Greek Empire was a myth based off of previous empires.

I've cited my sources in this thread. Don't take my word for it. Check out the books for yourself. :)

None answer, also, fallacies of bare assertions and false equivocation.

Your logic goes as follows:

Caesar [or Alexander the great] exists therefore Jesus exists.

That is really rather terrible and not really worthy of a thought out reply. There is nothing similar to Caesar and ATG [existance backed up by literally mountains of evidence] and Jesus [nothing except the bible and spurious accounts several decades after his supposed death].

And it's also wrong of you to say you've cited sources. You've cited nothing. Who are these modern scholars? Where are they agreeing that Jesus existed? Are you referring to the mountain of apologists that agree with something that they themselves believe in?

Here, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Awaiting impartial unbiased sources that corroborate your bare assertions. Otherwise I'm chalking your bare assertions down to your own confirmation bias and hence that they are based on a religious position, not a reasoned one.

And don't worry, at this point I wouldn't take you at your word if you said the sky was blue.

[Colanth]

@Colanth: Who has said that Josephus is a forgery?

Do your own scholarship.  Just about every single Bible scholar says that not "Josephus", but that one passage IN Josephus, isn't a forgery but a later Christian insertion.  (If you knew enough to ask the right question, I'd have pulled a few names for you, but since you obviously don't know the subject well enough for it to make any difference, I won't bother.)

Tacitus makes explicit mention of Jesus Christ.

WRONG!  He makes explicit mention of a Christus.  If you don't know the difference, learn it.

I have provided my sources regarding the Resurrection argument

Only insofar as what Christianity believes.  We already KNOW what Christianity believes.  Provide sources with EVIDENCE.

Regarding Alexander the Great, what I mean is that the earliest reliable historical document about Alexander the Great comes five hundred years after his death.

We KNOW that the accomplishments claimed for him were actually accomplished, so the claims are believable.  The documents are mere commentary, not assertions that he did what they claim he did.

I refuse to discuss historicity with someone who obviously knows nothing about it.  Learn about Alexander, learn about historicity, learn how documents pertain to events - then maybe your questions will sound informed.  (They don't.  You sound like the people who ask for "the missing link" between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs or Archaeopteryx and birds.)

In the same way, I could attack 'secular' sources based on bias.

"Secular" doesn't mean "anti-Christian", it means "not based on religious assertion, but on fact".  You attack fact?

The sources I have provided

Were written by people whose ONLY qualification is that they've studied what Christianity asserts.  As I said, we already KNOW what Christianity asserts.  We want EVIDENCE that the assertions are true.

The earlier the source is the better and the more consistent sources are as time goes on, the better.

Now tell us about how the shadow on the wall is evidence that there's a monster under your bed - because what you said sounds about as childish.  Later sources are less accurate.  Earlier sources aren't more accurate DUE TO BEING EARLIER.  That's what a layman might think, but it's not true.  A source from the time of the event can be as false as pure fiction, but a source from thousands of years after the event is PROBABLY not very accurate.  There's a HUGE difference.

All of the research sources I have presented have explored physical evidence.

From the point of view of "this is what the Bible says, let's see if we can find evidence to back it up".  If they were really looking for evidence that the Bible is false, they didn't have to explore anything.  There are hundreds of easily-obtained examples.

I encourage you the read the books I have presented in this thread, even if it is to ridicule them. What harm is there in reading them?

It would be a waste of time to read a chemistry book written by a professor of literature.  It's the same waste of time to read proof that the Bible is true written by a theologist (who assumes, a priori, that it is).

The point is that not enough time passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first document about Him for there to be embellishment or copying.

No?  How long does it take to copy or embellish?  A week?  A whole month?  The first document ABOUT A MAN NAMED JESUS dates to almost the 3rd century.  That's not enough time?  (Yes, we know that the assertion is that the whole Bible was written by about 70 CE.  The EVIDENCE is that the first mention of Jesus as a man, not as Paul's sky-godlet, is from around 190 CE.)

Besides this, none of the deities of pagan mystery religions even resemble the Jesus of the Bible.

Many of them do - sky-godlet mixed with the local religion.  In the case of Christianity it's Judaism mixed with a sky-godlet.  In the case of Mithraism it's the Persian religion mixed with a sky-godlet.  Etc.

Don't get hung up on the details, Jesus left an empty tomb, Osiris was brought back to life by his widow, etc.  They're ALL stories of the previous religion mixed with a sky-godlet.

These scholars not only explored the work of 'secular' scholars, but also the work of archaeology.

Since they're not archaeologists, so what?  They're not educationally qualified to analyze archaeological finds.  They found things that back up their previously-held beliefs and presented them as evidence that the beliefs are true.  That's about as opposed to reality-based research as you can get.

You bring up very valid points. The difference between Jesus and the other people who were raised from the dead is that Jesus was Resurrected, while Lazarus and the others were merely revived.

As I said, you're getting hung up on the details.  Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs are both fairy tales, even though there are no pigs in the former and the latter has no human girl.  All the godlet stories from the Middle East of 2,000 years ago are myths, regardless of the details.

If you have evidence that yours is actual history, post it.  The default position is "nah".

Jesus had a new body and no one else in the world has yet been Resurrected.

Evidence?  Posting an assertion as proof of an assertion is silly.  (And another reason I won't read your sources - that's all they do is make assertions that other assertions are true.  There's no evidence in any of them that any of the assertions are true, they're like your [incorrect] assertion that Tacitus mentions Jesus because he says that the leader of the people he's talking about was anointed.)

[caseagainstfaith]

WRONG!  He makes explicit mention of a Christus.  If you don't know the difference, learn it.

I came across another Christian elsewhere using the Tacitus reference.  I agree it is not very strong.  But, I guess I don't fully understand Colanth's point here.  The relevant passage in Tacitus, says:

Code Select Expand

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. "

So, here are things I know of:

1.  It is disputed that Nero ever did scape-goat the Christians for the fire.
2.  Christus is not necessarily Jesus Christ.
3.  The original text may have referred to the group as Chrestians not Christians.
4.  Some question Tacitus using the title as procurator instead of prefect for Pontius Pilate.  But, Richard Carrier says he probably had both titles so this is not an issue.

So, as I said, I do understand there is some dispute around whether he really meant Christ and Christians.  Yet, given the whole passage, which indicates that there are a group of followers, who took the name of their movement from the guy executed by Pontius Pilate, well, I'm inclined to accept that the passage is about Jesus Christ and Christians, unless there is something more in doubt here that I am not understanding.

I read the Wikipedia article, and the Secular Web article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ojfaq.html

Yeah, I know that Wikipedia isn't scholarly, but, seems to be reasonably balanced article.  It brings up the points in question, and says that most scholars accept the passage as genuine, and referring to Christ.

Now, as the Secular Web points out, Tacitus is likely just repeating what Christians say about Christ and thus is not independent attestation to his existence.

But, for those, like Clanth, who argue that the passage isn't even about Jesus Christ, well, it looks more likely to me that it is is.

Can someone explain what I might be missing?

[Colanth]

WRONG!  He makes explicit mention of a Christus.  If you don't know the difference, learn it.

I came across another Christian elsewhere using the Tacitus reference.  I agree it is not very strong.  But, I guess I don't fully understand Colanth's point here.

Christus (Christos, Chreestos) refers to an "anointed one".  It doesn't refer to any particular anointed person, just that their leader was anointed.  The claim of that group was that their leader was anointed, and was killed by Pilate.  Tacitus was born in 55 CE, so he was just relating what he had heard, not even necessarily from Christians.

So, here are things I know of:

1.  It is disputed that Nero ever did scape-goat the Christians for the fire.

It is disputed that the Romans ever scapegoated Christians at all.  The stories of early Christian martyrdom may have been just that - stories made up much later (like after 325 CE).

2.  Christus is not necessarily Jesus Christ.

Any more than "president" is Abe Lincoln.

3.  The original text may have referred to the group as Chrestians not Christians.

Followers of an anointed leader, in either case.  Nothing about the name or identity of that leader.  If "Jesus Christ" had been an actual Jewish man in the Jerusalem area in the 1st century, his name would have been Yeshua Chreestos (as nearly as the Aramaic can be rendered in Latin script).  Yeshua, in English translation referring to any other man of that name, is Joshua, not Jesus.

4.  Some question Tacitus using the title as procurator instead of prefect for Pontius Pilate.  But, Richard Carrier says he probably had both titles so this is not an issue.

Many dispute Carrier on this point, and say that the more likely situation is that this was a later interpolation (someone added it to Tacitus' writings later) - so much later that the interpolater wasn't sure of what Roman titles had been.

So, as I said, I do understand there is some dispute around whether he really meant Christ and Christians.

Only among Christian apologists.  The only debate among scholars is whether it was a later interpolation, meant to bolster the 4th century religion that usurped the Jesus character, or if it was just Tacitus, referring to the Jewish sect of the 1st century.

Yet, given the whole passage, which indicates that there are a group of followers, who took the name of their movement from the guy executed by Pontius Pilate

Which lends more credence to the former (post-4th-century) interpretation, since there are no 1st century records of any execution of a great leader of the Jews.

well, I'm inclined to accept that the passage is about Jesus Christ and Christians, unless there is something more in doubt here that I am not understanding.

No scholar takes that view any longer.  The debate is some anointed 1st century minor Jewish leader or post-4th century addition.  (Remember, 1st century Jesus - Paul's Jesus - was a godlet living in the 7th heaven, who came down to the 1st heaven, never to Earth, to be killed - then returned to the 7th heaven.  There was no 1st century "God in the form of a man" Jesus.  The earliest reference we can find to that is very late 2nd century.)

Yeah, I know that Wikipedia isn't scholarly, but, seems to be reasonably balanced article.

"Balanced" has nothing to do with "accurate".  A "balanced" report of WWII would include the claim that the Holocaust never happened.  An accurate one would say that some people try to show that it didn't, even though we have proof that it did.

It brings up the points in question, and says that most scholars accept the passage as genuine, and referring to Christ.

If you define "scholar" to include Christian apologists who have studied, at most, what the Bible says.  If you ignore them, and look, instead, to only scholars - those who study the time and place in question - you'll find few who take either Tacitus or Josephus as evidence of Jesus.  Apologists look for proof that Jesus existed just the way the Bible says he did.  Scholars look to see what the actual evidence says, whatever it says.

Can someone explain what I might be missing?

History.  Language.  Actual evidence that, in the 1st century, "Jesus" was anything but a myth written by Paul (or whoever used that name in his writings).  Lots and lots of things.

But if you take as "scholarly" the writings of people who need "Jesus" to be more than a myth (i.e. Christians), you're looking at confirmation bias, not scholarly research.  (And if you take what's written on Constantine's Column, you'll find history that blows the Jesus story back to the world of myth, where it belongs.)

[caseagainstfaith]

Tacitus was born in 55 CE, so he was just relating what he had heard, not even necessarily from Christians.

I'm totally on board with you here.  Regardless of whether it is about Jesus Christ or not, he is probably just relating "common knowledge".

Yet, given the whole passage, which indicates that there are a group of followers, who took the name of their movement from the guy executed by Pontius Pilate

Which lends more credence to the former (post-4th-century) interpretation, since there are no 1st century records of any execution of a great leader of the Jews.

First, if it was a Christian interpolation, wouldn't they have used the right names for Christ and Christians.  Doesn't the fact that it has ambiguous words argue against it being a Christian interpolation?

And, if, hypothetically, Jesus did exist, but, a lot smaller time than Christians say he ways, then we might not have a record of his execution.

The stories of early Christian martyrdom may have been just that - stories made up much later (like after 325 CE).

I'm aware that the stories of martyrdom are at least exaggerated.  I think it is is generally accepted that it did happen some, prior to Constantine's conversion, but likely a lot later than Nero who probably never even heard of the Christians.

2.  Christus is not necessarily Jesus Christ.

Any more than "president" is Abe Lincoln.

Well, it put "President" in the passage, you get that there were a group of people called the presidents, who took their name from some president.  Or if use anointed, you get that there was a group called the anointeds who took there name from someone anointed. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

"Balanced" has nothing to do with "accurate".  A "balanced" report of WWII would include the claim that the Holocaust never happened.  An accurate one would say that some people try to show that it didn't, even though we have proof that it did.

I also read the Secular Web article, which did not argue that the passage wasn't about Jesus or Christians, only that it likely isn't an independent account.

If you define "scholar" to include Christian apologists who have studied, at most, what the Bible says.  If you ignore them, and look, instead, to only scholars - those who study the time and place in question - you'll find few who take either Tacitus or Josephus as evidence of Jesus.

Well, I of course know that Christians really really need Tacitus and Josephus and thus have a lot of bias.  But, you also can't just dismiss scholars because they are Christian.  There are Christians with legitimate historical credentials.

Further, I can't say I've ever taken up a survey of secular scholars on Josephus and Tacitus, but, I think that there indeed a lot of secular scholars who find them to be evidence of a real Jesus.  You do know that the mythist position is a minority opinion even among non believers, right?  And, don't get me wrong, I am favorable to the mythist position and overall agree with you that Josephus and Tacitus are not good evidence.  But, I am just trying to point out that what I think is correct, that many secular scholars do think so.  Maybe they haven't studied the issue very much and thus haven't really made a really informed opinion. But, it is still a fact that mythism is a minority position.

[Colanth]

Yet, given the whole passage, which indicates that there are a group of followers, who took the name of their movement from the guy executed by Pontius Pilate

Which lends more credence to the former (post-4th-century) interpretation, since there are no 1st century records of any execution of a great leader of the Jews.

First, if it was a Christian interpolation, wouldn't they have used the right names for Christ and Christians.  Doesn't the fact that it has ambiguous words argue against it being a Christian interpolation?

No, in that place at that time, "Christus" might have been understood to mean Jesus.  When most of the people are illiterate there's really no way to tell what the speech of the common people was.  Even as recently as Shakespeare, the slang is impossible for some.  His use of "nunnery" was Elizabethan slang for "brothel".  How do we know, now, how "Christus" was used somewhere in the centuries following Constantine?

And, if, hypothetically, Jesus did exist, but, a lot smaller time than Christians say he ways, then we might not have a record of his execution.

If there was one proclaimed by the populace to be "King of the Jews", the Romans would have noted this treason.  They kept pretty good records of petty thievery, but not of treason?

If some minor itinerant preacher named Yeshua was roaming the streets in 1st century Jerusalem, who cares?  That's not the Jesus of the Bible.  Is there someone in a large US city named Clark?  Sure.  Does that make Superman real?

2.  Christus is not necessarily Jesus Christ.

Any more than "president" is Abe Lincoln.

Well, it put "President" in the passage, you get that there were a group of people called the presidents, who took their name from some president.

Their title.  And there were anointed religious leaders.  So what?

Or if use anointed, you get that there was a group called the anointeds who took there name from someone anointed. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Not if the people understood the word.  But the people involved here were Aramaic-speakers.  Only the literati would have been fluent in Latin.  And that's discounting the scenario in which "Christus" was just a leader of a small group of Jews.  (Rabbinic Judaism was just getting started in those days.  A rabbi was merely a teacher, not a religious leader.)

Or the word could be interpreted (remember, usage isn't always the same as definition, especially when almost no one is literate, and the concept of a dictionary lay many centuries in the future) to mean "chosen" - as in "the chosen people".  That group may have thought that it was special in Yahweh's eye.  So yes, they were the "anointeds" - the specially chosen ones.  We have very little knowledge of the speech of the common people.

I also read the Secular Web article, which did not argue that the passage wasn't about Jesus or Christians, only that it likely isn't an independent account.

That's not an argument, it's a fact.  You can't make an independent account of something that happened before you were born.  It HAS TO BE hearsay.

If you define "scholar" to include Christian apologists who have studied, at most, what the Bible says.  If you ignore them, and look, instead, to only scholars - those who study the time and place in question - you'll find few who take either Tacitus or Josephus as evidence of Jesus.

Well, I of course know that Christians really really need Tacitus and Josephus and thus have a lot of bias.  But, you also can't just dismiss scholars because they are Christian.

I can just dismiss the Jesus myth on three grounds.

1) It's the same sky-godlet myth as MANY other cultures in the region used. Mithras was the sky-godlet with Persian trappings.  Osiris was the sky-godlet with Egyptian trappings.  Jesus was the sky-godlet with Jewish trappings.  They were all born of a virgin.  They all died and came back.  That's the sky-godlet myth.

Read Paul.  His Jesus wasn't a man.  That was invented in the late SECOND century.

2) No actual evidence of the Jesus of the Bible.

3) Constantine's Column.

(We can also add in the fact, and it's well-known, that Christianity has lied over and over through the centuries.  Even as early as the second century, one of the early Christian fathers said that lying in furtherance of Christianity was just fine.  One doesn't normally take the word of a known liar without evidence to back it up - and there's none in this case.)

There are Christians with legitimate historical credentials.

I worked with a Christian biologist who believed in miracle cures.  Many Christians have no problem being rational with everything but Christianity.

Further, I can't say I've ever taken up a survey of secular scholars on Josephus and Tacitus, but, I think that there indeed a lot of secular scholars who find them to be evidence of a real Jesus.

The field changes daily. What a scholar may have said 5 years ago, and what he says in light of evidence found last week, may be entirely different.  Make sure that you're reading a scholar's current views.

You do know that the mythist position is a minority opinion even among non believers, right?

So was the heliocentric position in the early 17th century.  Most people, believers and non-believers, and even many scholars, have no idea what Constantine's Column is, let alone what's on it.

But, it is still a fact that mythism is a minority position.

Anyone who understands what Constantine's Column represents, and still maintains that the Biblical Jesus was a real person, isn't paying attention.  But it's going to take decades before the column is as well known as, say, Tacitus.  (And many people still don't know who Tacitus was, let alone what he wrote.)

[caseagainstfaith]

I also read the Secular Web article, which did not argue that the passage wasn't about Jesus or Christians, only that it likely isn't an independent account.

That's not an argument, it's a fact.  You can't make an independent account of something that happened before you were born.  It HAS TO BE hearsay.

Sure, but his source *could have been* a good source, such as a Roman records that are lost.  There is no good reason to think so.  I once discussed this point with the infamous tool JP Holding, who, of course, insisted that Tacitus was a careful historian who wouldn't take the word of Christians and so he "certainly" would have looked it up. But, of course, that is just apologist nonsense.  There isn't any good reason to think he used Roman records.

But, my primary point was that the Secular Web did not seem to have a problem with the passage being about Jesus and Christians, or it being an interpolation.  Their only problem is that we don't know the source, and that it was probably just from "common knowledge".

Of course that article is now pretty old, and indeed, the author could have more nuanced opinion on the subject now.

If some minor itinerant preacher named Yeshua was roaming the streets in 1st century Jerusalem, who cares?  That's not the Jesus of the Bible.  Is there someone in a large US city named Clark?  Sure.  Does that make Superman real?

This of course raises the question of what exactly would count as a "real historical Jesus"?  How similar to the Biblical Jesus would he need to be to be considered the "real Jesus"?  My take on the issue is, if there was a real human being, that was the single source upon which the Jesus story was built, no matter how different from the portrayal in the Bible, if this one person was the inspiration or germination of the Jesus story, then he was the real Jesus.

Thus, in my view, the "historical Jesus" could have been minor enough to escape much notice.  I think the case for it being purely myth is stronger, so, I think that there was no historical Jesus.  I'm just saying that I consider it not totally ruled out, based on my definition of a historical Jesus.

Read Paul.  His Jesus wasn't a man.  That was invented in the late SECOND century.

I'm familiar with that argument, most well known to be argued by Doherty.  And now by Carrier.  It depends on how you interpret some passages, of course.

Even as early as the second century, one of the early Christian fathers said that lying in furtherance of Christianity was just fine.

I think you are speaking of Eusebius.  Carrier argues that the evidence that Eusebius actually said this isn't strong, it is heresay.  I think we have good reason to conclude that there have always been a lot of fraud in the Christian church.  And Eusbius might have said that.  But, he might not have.

[Colanth]

I also read the Secular Web article, which did not argue that the passage wasn't about Jesus or Christians, only that it likely isn't an independent account.

That's not an argument, it's a fact.  You can't make an independent account of something that happened before you were born.  It HAS TO BE hearsay.

Sure, but his source *could have been* a good source

Quoting anyone else is hearsay - that's what hearsay means, that it's not your testimony.

such as a Roman records that are lost.

They didn't lose counts of bread loaves, but they lost one of the most important cases of treason against the Empire?  You're accusing an anal empire of being sloppy.  No historian would even contemplate that, let alone go along with it.

I once discussed this point with the infamous tool JP Holding, who, of course, insisted that Tacitus was a careful historian who wouldn't take the word of Christians and so he "certainly" would have looked it up. But, of course, that is just apologist nonsense.  There isn't any good reason to think he used Roman records.

The same passage in Annals that supposedly refers to Jesus also refers to the martyrdom of Christians - which we STRONGLY suspect is a fairy tale, invented by later Christians.

Oh, another thought.  You know how Christians claim that Christians were fed to lions in the Colosseum?  By Nero?  Because he blamed them for the fire?

When the Colosseum was built by Vespasian after Nero was dead.  Jesus was REALLY powerful.  Or the whole thing was made up by people who didn't know history.  No one, during Nero's time (or, I suspect, even 100 years after his death), would have told of Christians being martyred in the Colosseum - since there was no Colosseum yet.  It would be like a book written in 1980 talking about 9-11 and the fall of the Twin Towers.

But, my primary point was that the Secular Web did not seem to have a problem with the passage being about Jesus and Christians, or it being an interpolation.

The web is not an authoritative source.

Their only problem is that we don't know the source, and that it was probably just from "common knowledge".

As was the slaughter of Christians?  That's what the passage claims.  And written 40 or 50 years after the fact?

Of course that article is now pretty old, and indeed, the author could have more nuanced opinion on the subject now.

The facts discovered in the past couple of years could make it all moot.

If some minor itinerant preacher named Yeshua was roaming the streets in 1st century Jerusalem, who cares?  That's not the Jesus of the Bible.  Is there someone in a large US city named Clark?  Sure.  Does that make Superman real?

This of course raises the question of what exactly would count as a "real historical Jesus"?  How similar to the Biblical Jesus would he need to be to be considered the "real Jesus"?

The one in the Bible.  The one who healed the sick with a touch, raised the dead, walked on water, fed five thousand with five loaves and two fish, etc., etc.  If that Jesus didn't exist, the entire New Testament is in question, since it's basically the story of THAT Jesus.

My take on the issue is, if there was a real human being, that was the single source upon which the Jesus story was built, no matter how different from the portrayal in the Bible, if this one person was the inspiration or germination of the Jesus story, then he was the real Jesus.

Not the Jesus of the Bible, though.  Just some teacher who had a following almost 2,000 years ago.  Big deal.  There were a lot of them who had followers.  If Constantine had chosen Mo to make the story about, Islam would be Christianity.

Thus, in my view, the "historical Jesus" could have been minor enough to escape much notice.

Minor enough that he wouldn't be any more important than any other Jerusalem rabbi of the 1st century.

I think the case for it being purely myth is stronger, so, I think that there was no historical Jesus.  I'm just saying that I consider it not totally ruled out, based on my definition of a historical Jesus.

I've said it many times before: Is there a man in NYC now named Joe?  Of course.  So what?  He's as important as some man in Jerusalem in the 1st century named Yeshua.  They're both common names for the time and place.

And neither one has anything to do with the Biblical Jesus being totally a myth.  The fact that someone there and then had the name has nothing at all to do with the myth.

Read Paul.  His Jesus wasn't a man.  That was invented in the late SECOND century.

I'm familiar with that argument, most well known to be argued by Doherty.  And now by Carrier.  It depends on how you interpret some passages, of course.

It depends on how you "interpret" actual manuscripts.  The very earliest document that mentions a human Jesus is dated to about 187 CE.  Nothing any earlier.  That takes it out of the realm of reporting and into the realm of being made up.

And the story on Constantine's Column *is* evidence - that Constantine pretty much invented the entire Christian religion that sees Jesus as the son-of-God savior.  We'll have to wait for the entire translation.  But if we have actual evidence that a story was invented in the 4th century (and it sure looks as if we do), all the theories about it actually having happened in the 1st century, and not being all a myth, are so much fodder for the trash heap of history.  If something actually happened, there's no sense in trying to decide how likely it is that it could or couldn't happen.  The probability of an event that occurred is 1.0, and the probability that it happened any other way is 0.0.

[caseagainstfaith]

Quoting anyone else is hearsay - that's what hearsay means, that it's not your testimony.

So what?  In historical study, we often accept second hand information if we feel that the person had a good source.  In this case, we do not have reason to think so.

They didn't lose counts of bread loaves, but they lost one of the most important cases of treason against the Empire?

I was saying the records are lost to us.  And lots and lots of Roman records are lost to us.

But, my primary point was that the Secular Web did not seem to have a problem with the passage being about Jesus and Christians, or it being an interpolation.

The web is not an authoritative source.

The Secular Web is actually fairly scholarly.  They have a pier review process before articles are posted.  I know, I have a couple of articles on that site and they were peer reviewed by people like Kieth Augustine.

The facts discovered in the past couple of years could make it all moot.

Can you tell me more about the column you refer to?  Others of these discoveries you refer to?

My take on the issue is, if there was a real human being, that was the single source upon which the Jesus story was built, no matter how different from the portrayal in the Bible, if this one person was the inspiration or germination of the Jesus story, then he was the real Jesus.

Not the Jesus of the Bible, though.

Not *THE* Jesus of the Bible, but the *origin* of *THE* Jesus of the Bible.  And for that such a person, if he existed would be notable for that, even if he was, at the time, not particularly notable.

And the story on Constantine's Column *is* evidence - that Constantine pretty much invented the entire Christian religion that sees Jesus as the son-of-God savior.  We'll have to wait for the entire translation.  

Reference? I'd like to learn more about this.

[Colanth]

Quoting anyone else is hearsay - that's what hearsay means, that it's not your testimony.

So what?  In historical study, we often accept second hand information if we feel that the person had a good source.  In this case, we do not have reason to think so.

Sure we do.  Tacitus had a good source that some group called itself "anointed" or the followers of someone who was anointed.

Considering the times, be careful that you don't yawn to death over that one.  Remember, "son of God saviors" were about as common as used car salesmen are now.  So the leader of one such group was executed.  That would have made half a column inch at the bottom of page 8.

They didn't lose counts of bread loaves, but they lost one of the most important cases of treason against the Empire?

I was saying the records are lost to us.  And lots and lots of Roman records are lost to us.

Not the counts of bread loaves, but ALL the records of the WORST treason in Roman history?

The Christians supposedly claimed that this man, Jesus, was above Caesar.  Since NO ONE in the entire world was above Caesar, not even the rulers of other empires, that was probably the single greatest crime ever committed against the empire.  And all records of that have been lost?

The only way it wouldn't have been written on the sky is if it were fictional, and told about a previous time.

The facts discovered in the past couple of years could make it all moot.

Can you tell me more about the column you refer to?  Others of these discoveries you refer to?

The column is an ongoing research project.  Access was only granted in, I believe, 2012.  It's going to take years to copy the story.  (It's engraved in the stone, winding around the entire length of the column.)  Then it'll take years to translate it all and figure out which parts are fable and which are history.

But from what they've seen so far, Constantine needed a religion for the masses.  (Mithraism was for officers and nobles.)  So he, or someone under him, invented a religion that used the "chreestos" myth of 3 centuries earlier, but with elements of Mithraism (eating of the god's flesh, etc.)  The statue at the top of the column is Constantine as Apollo/Jesus.

This is just what I've gotten from someone involved, but it's going to be a long time before anything else comes out of it.

My take on the issue is, if there was a real human being, that was the single source upon which the Jesus story was built, no matter how different from the portrayal in the Bible, if this one person was the inspiration or germination of the Jesus story, then he was the real Jesus.

Not the Jesus of the Bible, though.

Not *THE* Jesus of the Bible, but the *origin* of *THE* Jesus of the Bible.

The origin of the character was Paul's sky-godlet who lived in the 7th heaven.  Does it really matter what name he chose for this mythical character?  Yeshua was a common Hebrew name at the time.  (Remember Yeshua who brought down the walls of that city that didn't have walls, Jericho?)

And for that such a person, if he existed would be notable for that, even if he was, at the time, not particularly notable.

Notable for what?  Having his name used as the name of a character in a story?  (You're not seriously suggesting that some man actually lived in "the 7th heaven"?)

The question of whether there was a real Jesus doesn't revolve around whether there was a real man in 1st century Jerusalem named Yeshua. OF COURSE THERE WAS.  It's almost unbelievable that an entire century could have passed, in what was a large Jewish city, without at least one boy being given a pretty common name.  So what?

A teacher who performed miracles?  That would be very interesting - and relevant.  A man with a name that was common for the time?  Maybe someone cares, but I sure don't.  But why would a character in a myth be given the name of a real person, when just a name would do?