'The secular world is most moral.' 'It is based on science, democracy and the separation of religion and state.'

please David f you demonstrate naivity at its best and deception at its worst.

Dear runner,

I deal with facts. You don't. Your beliefs are not based on fact. Belief that nonsense is true does not make it true.

When your beliefs are challenged you write, "you demonstrate naivity at its best and deception at its worst."

Calling me or anybody else names is no substitute for reason or evidence. You have neither on your side. Secularity or the separation of religion and state goes along with a greater morality. Morality is determined not by what you believe but by what you do.

Many people believe sincerely that their religious beliefs are valid. Some of those beliefs are the same as yours. Some of those beliefs are different from yours. It is reasonable to reject all of them.

However, all is not lost. You can abandon superstition for reason at any age. May you join enlightened humanity.

Perhaps some are impervious to reason. Maybe you are one of them. Maybe not. I hope you are not completely lost.

Reasons greetings.

The author writes:

‘… the majority of scholars would probably adopt a check-list of ten events attributed to Jesus which they are fairly confident about’

I’m sorry, but ‘probably adopt’, ‘attributed to Jesus’ and ‘fairly confident about’ is no substitute for EVIDENCE. And there is absolutely none that proves any of the ‘check-list of ten events’ that are supposed to be the ‘academically’ accepted facts of Jesus’ life.

There are no facts about any historical existence of Jesus (meaning ‘saviour’ – which, in itself, should ring some academic alarm bells), only what is mostly described as ‘scholarly consensus’. This does not equate with proof.

Every supposedly ‘known fact’ is entirely based on retrospective hearsay. Despite the Romans being meticulous record keepers, not a single contemporary piece of writing mentions anyone who could equate with the New Testament character of Jesus – either his birth, childhood, adult life or death.

No contemporary Roman record shows that Pontius Pilate executed such a man. Why is there no Roman, Greek or Aramaic account of the very public execution of this very public figure for the very serious crime of high treason?

Those who deny the existence of an historical Jesus, based on lack of contemporary evidence, are being far more scholarly than a bunch of theologians who are ‘fairly confident’ about a ‘check-list of events attributed to Jesus’ so-called life.

" Authors like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus from the late first and early second century wrote about Jesus too."

Pliny the Younger, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus wrote only about Christians and their following of a Christ. The Jesus myth holds that there was belief in a 'Christ' before their was a belief in 'Jesus-as-the-Christ', so the writing of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus fit with that hypothesis. To appeal to authority, as Bird does, there are several scholars who have acknowledged that eg. France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20

Scholars have long questioned the authenticity of the 'Testimonium Flavium' (Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3). Several papers questioning the veracity of the Josephus passages have been published in peer-reviewed articles -

Goldberg GT (1995) “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke”
The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Vol 13; pp 59-77.

Carrier R. (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
The Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol 20; no 4, (Winter edn); pp. 489-514.
Abstract: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

Carrier has also published on Tacitus's Annals ref -

Carrier R .(2014) "The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44" Vigiliae Christianae, Vol 68, Issue 3; pp 264–283

Debates on the existence of Jesus strike me as a colossal waste of time and effort. I am reminded of the old quip about two bald men fighting over a comb. Surely what should be more relevant is whether Jesus was, or was not, an impressive, 'divine' figure. The scanty evidence we have in the Gospels (incidentally, no dates, no independent corroboration) would suggest a bipolar, intransigent individual who would not accept that not many things are in black and white, the other people's views may differ from his own, etc. etc. Not a very impressive picture, certainly not one to instil awe and admiration. The whole edifice of creation, divine intervention where and when it cannot be verified, the belief in "original sin", the idea of a "messiah" who will redeem humankind are so absurd as to not merit lengthy arguments and discussions. In one word, bah! humbug...

McReal Those source you have mentioned are creditable, either crude insertions by copyist many hundreds of years after the fact.
Or only mention Christians, and no one is saying that Christianity is not real.

but back to the real point.

Gautama Buddha existed, should his claims be taken seriously? What about Joseph Smith he was real, what about his claims.
Even if you convince people that your Jesus actually existed, it doesn't follow that his claims of divinity are true.