"" the real mystery is that someone who managed to do all those amazing things ... didn't get so much as a tiny by-line in any contemporary documentation.""
Pericles, 12:08:58 PM

It has been documented (can't be bothered searching) there were ~40 historians first century CE/AD.

""Recalling a couple of centuries later that this guy was put to death is one thing.""

All I said was
* the documentation virtually just mentions of his followers, or
* vague mention of similar names or descriptions (Chrestus, etc)

[quote]Origen, published 'Contra Celsum' ~254 CE, 150 years after Josephus' book 'Antiquities of the Jews'. .. Origen wrote Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ:
"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ..."

Origin's book 'Commentary on Matthew' which also contained a reference to Josephus rejecting Jesus as Christ"
"And the wonderful thing is, that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and ..."

... these references confirm .. Josephus' writing in 'Antiquities of the Jews' did not include a reference to Jesus being the Christ, at least in the middle of the 3rd century CE. It is probable that the Christian forgery was done after that time. [/quote]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

""The personal hunch of B.A. Robinson ... is that there were many Jewish teachers wandering in Galilee during the interval 20 to 30 CE. At least one may have been called Yeshua (Hebrew for Joshua). One developed a devoted following of fellow Jews, committed aggravated assault in the Jerusalem temple, and was arrested by the occupying Roman Army. He was crucified as an insurrectionist as one of perhaps ten thousand other Jews who suffered the same fate [then]

"The beliefs of two or three of these Galilean teachers were subsequently amalgamated and recorded in the early gospels ""

You're really overstating your case here, AndrewFindon.

<<...[The hearsay accounts] could be [worse if they were] from centuries later.>>

Granted, but I still fail to see how they are better than the evidence for MOST other figures of ancient history, as you claimed.

<<[A series of major events that directly intersect the life of Jesus] would in fact be the argument that most historians find most persuasive regarding Jesus.>>

Could you give an example? I can’t think of any events surrounding the life of Jesus that were recorded elsewhere. Like I said, not even the violent earthquake in Matthew was recorded elsewhere.

<<Thanks for the link. Backfires on you though - just read all that stuff about multiple sources!>>

Sorry, I might be just be having a ‘moment’ here... but where? A CRTL+F search of the page doesn’t even find the word “multiple”.

If you’re referring to the Gospels and how they (somewhat) satisfy multiple attestation (I thought you were predominantly arguing from the equally shaky extra-biblical sources, but anyway...), then all that really indicates is that it’s likely that there was some figure (or several figures) whom the Gospels were based on, and even biblical scholars admit that multiple attestation by itself says nothing about the accuracy of the accounts.

<<...you falsely assume that all biblical scholars are emotional and religious...>>

No, not all are. In fact, like with seminary, Biblical scholars start out all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, but some end up abandoning their beliefs when the reality of the Bible’s origins hits them. Many continue as scholars though, because - like with many non-believing clergy - it’s all they know. I can’t think of his name now, but there was one particular Biblical scholar who left the scholarship and started doing lectures on the nonsense of the Bible instead.

Do I have a bias? Of course. But I’m not emotionally tied to my bias. For example, if it is shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an historical Jesus existed, then it makes no difference to me. But does the evidence make a difference to believers?

Continued...

...Continued

Most of the time, yes, because they mistakenly assume that an historical Jesus lends credence to the Biblical Jesus. It doesn’t. No amount of evidence for an historical Jesus makes the miracles more likely. They remain in complete contradiction with everything we know about reality.

I’m not saying that Biblical scholars are totally unreliable, but there is reason to believe that we should take their conclusions with a pinch of salt.

<<...you've already demonstrated that you're inconsistent, quoting RT France when it suits you...>>

Oh dear. Are you really in that much of a tizz now that you don’t know who is saying what?

<<...for it NOT to be fallacious you must show where bias has actually occurred.>>

Where is this written? Where is it stated that providing good reasoning alone isn’t enough? And why is the fact that Hercules is dismissed as pure mythology not a good enough example of Bias?

Sorry, my point about ad hominems still stands.

<<The rest of your objection turns into nothing but conspiracy theory about how scholars simply accept an historical Jesus because they don't want to rock the boat.>>

I meant most people in general, not just scholars and yes, I know about Ehrman. Although, conspiracies involve unlawful/sinister acts, so your use of the word here is emotive and dismissed.

Virtually no-one has wanted to ‘rock the boat’ with religion until recently (this is no secret) and hundreds of years ago, not rocking the boat was even a health and safety issue.

Oh, and you’ve skipped my more important point about cultural and tradition influence. Is that a conspiracy too?

<<How about Pontius Pilate?>>

Yes, although, like you mentioned, we have an artifact for him now. When it was discovered is irrelevant. When we find an artifact for an historical Jesus, we can upgrade him to “Pontius Pilot” status.

But yes, before the discovery, there’d have been no good reason to believe he existed but, as with Jesus, that wouldn’t have made him entirely fictional either.

<<Or Alexander the great?>>

Not quite.

Continued...

...Continued

We have cities that had been destroyed and created in his wake and one even named after him.

<<...you goal-shift in asking for more and earlier sources that the several we already have>>

Erm... no, that’s not goal-shifting, that’s expressing a dissatisfaction with the evidence that has so far been presented. Expecting more evidence only constitutes ‘goal-shifting’ if I were to claim that what you had presented was still not enough, even after you had met all previous requirements laid-out by me.

Why are you so desperate to pin a fallacy on us? Are you so unsure of your own position?

This rule you’ve invented, that requires one to provide specific examples of bias to prevent an ad hominem qualifying as a fallacy - without providing a reason as to why reasoning alone isn’t enough - is closer to goal-shifting. But I don’t want to reduce the debate to some sort of tit-for-tat thing so I refuse to mention this.

Ooops, I just did.

<<...and you offer no plausible explanation for the emergence of the Christian church...>>

And you offer no plausible explanation for the emergence of Greek Mythology without an historical Hercules.

So there!

Seriously though, your argument here doesn’t become plausible for lack of something better. That’s an argument from ignorance.

Anyway, again, my position on this isn’t that Jesus is totally fictional, just that there isn’t sufficient evidence to believe (to any meaningful degree anyway) that he existed. If this were a court case, then I would have to say ”not guilty”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m saying “Innocent”.

If the scant evidence is enough for you, then great! My only issue was that you made it out to sound like the Jury was in and that anyone who wasn’t satisfied with the evidence was either ignorant of it or a loopy fringe-dweller.

“The ancient Egyptians calculated that there were 360 days in the year. They weren't right either, but they were pretty close considering the times they lived in.”(AJP)

Wrong again AJ Philips.

It is an error because the ancient Egyptians based their calendar on the moon instead of the sun.

Though the Egyptians did have a 360 day calendar, in a literal sense they did have a 365 day calendar system. The beginning of the year was marked by the addition of five additional days, known as "the yearly five days".(AJP)

“But anyway, I don’t care what this or that scholar thinks; I don’t care what this or that historian thinks; I don’t even care if they’re a secular scholar/historian…What these scholars and historians say, or who they interpret the scant documents to be referring to is a side issue to my point…”

AJ Philips knows “best”. He is the “authority.”

Don’t waste your time with a bigoted ignoramus who keeps committing factual errors after factual errors

Ah, welcome Philip Tang.

>>Don’t waste your time with a bigoted ignoramus who keeps committing factual errors after factual errors<<

And this, from the chap who insists that the "Big Bang" is of itself evidence of the existence of God.

Back atcha, Mr Tang.