McReal

Yes, Josephus did not think Jesus was Messiah. But he did believe Jesus existed. I also agree that non-biblical references to Jesus are scant. That is not surprising.

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority has no expertise in the subject under discussion. If your oncologist says you need an operation to remove a cancer you would be wise to take their advice, especially if their diagnosis confirmed in a second opinion. If they tip you off for a sure-fire winner in the Melbourne cup, be sceptical. Scholars of religion are trained to distinguish the genres of religious writing and to discern the historical from the mythic. So it is legitimate to cite them as authorities Jesus’ historicity. I’ll admit that Dawkins has no particular expertise in this area, however.

If non-biblical evidence for Jesus came solely from Christians, I’m sure you would treat it sceptically. Hence I think my claim that the hostility of the witnesses adds to their credibility is reasonable.

And yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I believe the fact that no early opponents of Christianity denied his existence is telling. The bible reports that Jesus’ death was highly public and officially sanctioned. Both Jews and Romans would have been able to refute a fallacious claim that Jesus was publicly executed outside Jerusalem during Passover around 30CE. If I proclaimed the superiority of English cricket based on their glorious victory at the WACA in December 2010 there would be a rush of people to correct me.

The biblical witness is not a circular argument. A circular argument assumes is conclusion, but the Gospel is a testimony, not an argument. It may be pure invention, but the simpler and more plausible explanation for the emergence of the Christian movement is that it had some historical basis.

Taken as a whole, the biblical witness, the non-biblical evidence, the fact that neither Jews nor Romans contested Christians’ claim that Jesus lived and died, and Occam’s razor all point to Jesus’ historical existence

@ Burkealot I agree with your point however, since Chrys has commented on her article people are wanting clarification and more information. Not many of the authors comment on their articles. It is great that the author is part of the discussion or has been.

Maybe Chrys's Stevenson the author's statement has been lost. However it is a article and it has been put out there on a online forum where people will comment and some will say harsh things or not make sense. There is a recommend comments for deletion icon which can be used by all if something goes off topic or breaks the forums rules. This has already occurred. Not all will agree with her and people can comment on various parts of her article this is the reason for this. If people do not wholeheartedly agree then that is fine. Art is in the eye of the beholder and like art writing and writers will be exposed to public opinion. They put it out there and then it takes on a life of its own. Not just friends and family a whole wide world or just the limits of the forum. I do think that many here are professional critiques but this does occur once works are published. There will be far more people who will scrutinize what Chrys will have to say as time goes on.

In a recent election, the advertising for the family first candidate in our area emphasised the involvement of that candidate in the caroling event associated with the ancient midsummer/midwinter festival lately called christmas.

Said candidate had an advanced degree in marketing, worked as head of marketing for her uni, and currently works as marketing manager for the baptist church (state? national? ad not clear).

Does anybody think her involvement in the carols presentation wasn't viewed first and foremost as a "marketing opportunity"?

How very "christian".

Chrys, I believe that a (perhaps reserved) celebration at about midwinter has been in existence immensely longer than any church existing or historical. Eating and it's unavoidable lockstep with the seasons predates them all.

Rusty

Rhian,

An appeal to authority is fallacious if the appeal is to the authority rather than evidence or verifiable information about the subject at hand - a decision to remove an operable tumour is based on imaging information, tumour type and typical tumour behaviour not the authority of the oncologist.

Scholars of religion have confirmation bias, so appeal to them is just an appeal to authority, especially when the information is as scant as it is.

As far as "If non-biblical evidence for Jesus came solely from Christians" goes, that is sleight of hand - I repeat there is virtually no non-biblical evidence for Jesus, it doesn't matter that it doesn't come from Christians.

""the fact that no early opponents of Christianity denied his existence is telling. "" - No it isn't. Saying Jews did not refute his existence is just special pleading.

That the Bible makes a fuss of Jesus' death is not telling. Your attempted arguments are circular and hence are not valid

@McReal
"An appeal to authority is fallacious if the appeal is to the authority rather than evidence "

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it is asserted that the authority cannot be wrong. It is legitimate to appeal to an expert opinion, provided room for contradiction is left.

"Scholars of religion have confirmation bias, so appeal to them is just an appeal to authority, especially when the information is as scant as it is."

Ad hominem. Besides, it is the consensus view of classical historians as well that Jesus existed.

"As far as "If non-biblical evidence for Jesus came solely from Christians" goes, that is sleight of hand - I repeat there is virtually no non-biblical evidence for Jesus, it doesn't matter that it doesn't come from Christians."

Actually, the 'sleight of hand' appears to be yours: you're shifting the goal-posts. That some texts were later collated into a single volume and revered by same as sacred is completely irrelevant. They should otherwise be treated as the independent sources that they are (and actually, as historians actually do treat them)

"Saying Jews did not refute his existence is just special pleading. " - Wrong. Corroboration by hostile witness is a very powerful form of attestation. It is indeed very telling that the extant reference to Jewish anti-Christian polemic implicitly accepts the death and honourable burial of Jesus.

Having just read this article, I must say it is one of the most interesting articles I have read this year.
I am happyu to have someone else explain why ALL people in Australia can celebrate Christmas and the accompanying holidays without having to believe in some bible stories!

I had read before that some of the cultural practices of European origin at Christmas predated the supposed birth of Christ.
I would be happy to see everyone celebrating Christmas joyously, no matter what they believe in.

I love our cultural history and believe we should embrace it all, not just that which has to do with Christianity.
We should give thanks for our cultural heritage and also for those religions and cultures different from the European cultures in our country.

Vive La Difference, and Merry Christmas to all : )