You have a very odd understanding of "ad hominem", AndrewFinden.

>>@Pericles "One believer quoting another believer is simply wallpaper, not argument." - That's still ad hominem. It is an argument (the mainstream one actually) Just deal with it.<<

Can't see much "playing the man, not the ball" in that observation of mine.

Nevertheless, to assert that the reference of one believer to another believer is actually "the mainstream argument" is suspiciously glib.

If I were to write a treatise on the social structure of Sydney in the late nineteenth century that was full of unexplained theories and logical lacunae, it would probably disappear without trace.

Then, however, I had the idea that I should get a bunch of like-minded chancers to copy out my ideas, and publish those in their own name.

Could I, in all reasonableness, claim that this somehow proved my theories to be accurate and correct?

I suspect not. You would be entirely justified in pointing out that, even though a number of people had written much the same stuff, no historian independent of my cabal had made the same observations, or drawn the same conclusions.

>>My point remains - even within the later-called 'canonical' sources, there is multiple attestation.<<

My point remains, too. Were they disinterested parties, or just members of the same team? Multiple attestation is one thing. External, third-party corroboration entirely another.

>>...there is no explanation of the church without an historical Jesus that has any credibility.<<

I still ask the question: is there an explanation of the church that doesn't require as its foundation the miracles that Jesus' promoters insist that he performed?

>>You're not going to try and argue that Mohammed didn't exist either, are you?<<

Not at all. As I have pointed out earlier, it is not the existence or non-existence of the person that is relevant, but whether he actually did what he is purported to have done.

It is kinda critical to the Mormons, for example, that they believe the story about Moroni and the golden plates. The fact of Joseph Smith's existence is entirely peripheral.

That's not a "response", boxgum.

>>I have a couple of outstanding responses to offer. Pericles : re encounter: Paul v the disciples in the upper room. Read again my post 20th Dec 3.27PM The Resurrection is not a resuscitation.<<

That doesn't clarify anything.

Did the disciples actually converse with a corporeal Jesus? Or was it, like Paul, an "encounter" within their own minds?

The reason I asked in the first place should have been obvious. "Resurrection from the dead" forms some kind of cornerstone to the Jesus story, does it not. It focuses on the concept that "God sent his only son to die for our sins".

If that person was actually a real, live person, then being raised from the dead would be, I suggest, extraordinarily potent symbolism.

If, on the other hand, the resurrection exists only in the minds of his followers, unsupported by the physical manifestation of "was dead, now not dead" Jesus, then we can open our minds to any number of alternate explanations for the report.

You make the exact point yourself. At least, I think you do.

>>Faith in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God the Risen Lord, causes offence to reason which is simply the by-product of an irrational event.<<

This is another way of saying "if you believe in the miracles, which are essentially irrational events, then you are in a good position to have faith in "the Risen Lord".

But it is possible that I have misinterpreted your sentence. It doesn't parse particularly well, after all.

perridicule..quote..<<Multiple attestation is one thing.
External, third-party corroboration entirely another.>>

per...think of this written conversation..[at this topic]
as if..a verbal conversation..at say a party

the 20 people who posted here
[lets pretend..they all read the same..[full]..conversation

if we were to each describe...the events
....we would each be talking about our witness..
only because..we..were here

we alone..who witnessed..this topic

it would be absurd..to ask for those not there
to have any thought regarding..what went down...here

your upset..about the so-called miracles
as am i...i have many times said the miracles..have other teachings
[just as jesus himself decried the need for miracles]

take the wedding at cana
the wine ran out...jesus says its nothing to do with me

he went further...he said i couldnt care less if you served the[your guests]..that water from the handwash jars

now handwashing was a ritual
jesus himself said its not what we put in
that makes us unclean..but that which issues forth from us

see jesus saying serve them
from the handwash-jars for what it is
the equivelent of saying..serve them from the toilet

and who would serve honoyured guests...even the best whine..[from a toilet]..the thing is he adressed servants...[servants only have the standing their master has]

being the servant of a master serving best wine..from a toilet
mate..better to risk the masters wrath,...[and serve his best wine..than become known as toliet water servant]

jesus deciples...didnt follow the rite
as revealed by the shew bread episiode

but for now lets go back to the 'miracle'..of feeding 4000/5000
who had no handwashing jars...yet feeding them all they wanted

note the seating arrangment..sitting oppisite each other
each watching the other..to dob in any who didnt obey the handwash RITUAL

jesus had much to say about futile rituals
and the feeding..og thoyusands is a key teaching many miss..the real meaning of

even with..''THE MESSIAH'..there
they could-not..even break the handwash RITUAL
did eat all they desired..because they desired ritual..not food

its the same with healing lepers...or those called..[deemed]..dead by the church...

oh ye unbelieving nations
needing miracles...not seeing the mess-age..for the rite

@McReal
I'm glad that I summarise the core of your argument correctly. But it's a toothless argument with a huge unwarrented assumption at the core, as I pointed out.

To your three points:
i) How is this even in your favour? you're basically agreeing that many of the references were to Christos/Christus which is the greek word for Messiah (meaning anointed) from which we get 'Christ'. A few spelling errors do disregard all that is a pretty weak argument.

ii)The particular misspelling in Tacitus is moot, because in the same paragraph he makes it clear that he is talking about Jesus and his followers.

iii) Yes, it does. It is an attestation - unless you wish to simply pick and chooses which of Josephus' attestations we can accept about other people and events. Your link doesn't even back up your argument.

In regards to you religioustolerance link - I don't have the space here to respond to it in any detail (I may write a blog response and post the link here) but not only does he not actually make any clear link between the data and his 'personal hunch' conclusion, his only references appear to be the 3 or 4 Jesus-mythers like Price and Wells (he quote Bertrand Russell as an authority on this issue?!) who certainly don't represent the mainstream scholarship and on the other hand, Josh McDowell. It is not very convincing.

On your RT France quote. Well - the historicity of Jesus doesn't hinge on Tacitus' reference. In any case, even though he doesn't accept the Tracitus reference as supportive, RT France was one of the few respected scholars to actually bother with refuting the Jesus-Myth theory. He would very much argue against your position that there is not enough evidence.

cont...

cont...

Re: my YEC comment - No, I am not saying YEC has scholarly acceptance, which is my point! While there may be a handful of scientists who advocate YEC, it has no real traction in the mainstream. The same can be said of Jesus-myth: there is a handful of scholars like the ones your essay references, but there is no real traction for the theory in mainstream historical scholarship.

Yes I know there is markian and Q priority (though not all of Matthew and Luke are from here) which is why I said at minimum 3 sources: Mark, John and Paul. 'Teams' have nothing to do with it. Either they relied on eacother as sources, or they didn't - and we have at least 3 writers who didn't rely on eachother and are thus independent attestation. Mark's ending doesn't effect the attestation of Jesus' existence.

So we have Mark, John, Paul as the minimum canonical sources, and Josephus plus whatever other Jewish and Greek references we might argue about - and absolutely NO competing claim. Further, the extant reference to hostile Jewish polemic implicitly corroborates his existence. Then there is the church. There is simply no reason to think that the guy at the centre of this movement never existed (unless you don't want him to!) whether you think he did miracles or not.

If there was no real Jesus, where's the evidence for development of the myth?! Where is the internal conflict as the myth developed? Why didn't any of the enemies point out the non-existence of the central figure?

Seeing as you like RT France:
"In the case of Luke, then, his claim is to be a careful historian who has researched his subject and can now offer the 'truth', and while the case is not entirely one-sided, there seems good reason to believe that his performance, where it can be checked, generally matches his claim. There may be room for debate over details of the information he offers, but there seems little ground for viewing his account of Jesus as substantially at variance with the facts."

@Pericles:
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I won't waste anymore time pointing out how ignoring an argument because it's 'wallpaper' by 'believers' is ad hominem. If you want to ignore the arguments by RT France and Van Voorst that Christopher Price references, and if you want to ignore Dickson's arguments, go ahead.

>"My point remains, too. Were they disinterested parties, or just members of the same team? Multiple attestation is one thing. External, third-party corroboration entirely another."

No it doesn't - see my previous reply to McReal on the non-issue of 'teams'. The idea of a 'disinterested' ancient historian is the real myth here.
At very minimum you have four independent sources: Mark, John, Paul and Josephus (though I would argue for more). Considering that there is no competing account, no sources arguing against existence, this is well and truly sufficient to establish historicity, especially when the historical phenomenon of the Christian movement is considered - whether you accept the miracles or not.

>"I still ask the question: is there an explanation of the church that doesn't require as its foundation the miracles that Jesus' promoters insist that he performed?"
- Apart from imposing naturalist philosophical assumptions, it's an irrelevant question. The question that historians ask, even those who are naturalist, is whether the church can be explained without the actual person of Jesus (miracles or not) and the overwhelming answer is 'no'.

>"Not at all. As I have pointed out earlier, it is not the existence or non-existence of the person that is relevant, but whether he actually did what he is purported to have done."
-Then I'm afraid you're in the wrong debate: for this is a discussion about the historicity of Jesus - did he exist or not. Talking about his claims is a related but different discussion, one we can't even begin to have until this one is had. Rejecting his existence based on his claims is fallacious.

His historicity is not dependant on whether he did miracles or not.