Mad Rabbi et al,
As the point under discussion is the existence of a human Jesus as the core for the biblical NT theological character, whether commenters are atheists or theists is not the primary issue. However, there are a couple of issues: 1/ O'Neill's self-description as an atheist to poison-the-well in his favor, and 2/ whether that description is true, as AJ Phillips questions.

As far as O'Neill 'unleashing' or 'slapping' people: that is a common feature of his interactions that hides his many misrepresentations or emphasis on half-truths or side-issue red-herrings.

eg. http://vridar.org/2012/01/24/david-fitzgerald-responds-to-tim-oneills-review-of-nailed/

A clear example is his posts here where O'Neill has posted obscure statements and "answered" them. with half truths eg. trying to claim Josephus was contemporaneous to an alleged 30AD NT-Jesus.

Dear Dream On,

The legend of the Messiah originated in Jewish history when the Kingdom of David and Solomon was split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The first appearance of the legend was in the person of a military figure who would reunite the two kingdoms. This legend grew until it became that of a figure who would cause swords to be beaten into plowshares and nations to study war no more. Jesus fulfilled neither vision of the messiah. He neither reunited the kingdom nor brought peace to earth.

However, there has been a successful attempt to portray Jesus as the messiah of Jewish scriptures. At the time of Jesus many legends of saviours born of a virgin were current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births tells of them. The Hebrew scriptures in Isaiah told of an almah or young woman who would bear a son. It is nothing unusual for that to happen. However, when the scriptures were translated into Greek, almah was translated as parthenos which indeed means virgin. This mistranslation has been preserved in the King James version and many other translations.

I do not believe in messiahs, God, human virgin births or the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament as any more reliable than the Koran, Tripitaka or Bhagavad Gita. I also have no way of knowing, if he existed, how Jesus regarded himself.

I do not see why his supposed Jewish origin is important. I believe none of the miracles in the Bible really happened. I have no way of knowing what facts if any the biblical myths were based on.

"Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ."

Yes, a Christ who was executed by Pilate in Judea during Tiberius' reign. Sound like anyone you know? Get a clue please.

Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:07:28 PM

"A Christ": Yes, a 'Christ' allegedly executed by Pilate; not a Jesus, not a Jesus Christ, nor a Jesus the Christ.

There is no substantiated reference to a Jesus who could fit the NT-Jesus narrative Before the late 2nd C: possibly before the P52 fragment of John (Bird incorrectly has P25 in his article).

There are plenty of assertions the Pauline epistles and the Gospels are mid-late 1st century to early 2nd century but I have never seen a cogent-inductive or valid/sound-deductive argument for those assertions.

So, there seem to be more clear indications of references to Christ or Christs before there were references specifically to Jesus [the Christ]: Tacitus; Seutonius; & Pliny the Younger.

And Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the [Greco-Egyptian] God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ .."

McReal wrote:

" the latter position - "the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation" - IS held by some scholars!"

Yes. Did I give you the impression it wasn't? It is held by a shrinking minority. The consensus position is that it isn't a wholesale interpolation.

"Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-ChristiaN"

I'm well aware that the word *could* be used that way. What you've failed to do is show that it's being used that way when Josephus refers to James. Try again.

AJ Philips wrote:

"I would hate to see you upset then, TimONeill."

You're mistaking mild scorn for me being "upset".

" I would say that it is a problem, as it is with any historical figure for which there are no contemporary records.
"

Then we have a "problem" with most ancient figures then. Write to your nearest university and explain this to the historians there. I'm sure they'll be devastated.

"As for expert opinions, I concur with what Richard Carrier said"

Carrier simply makes the assertion that other scholars "assume" Jesus existed. Other scholars have responded to him and corrected him, explaining that they have *concluded* he existed. Spot the difference.

"By the way, I don’t believe you’re an atheist."

*chuckle* Congratulations, you've set a new world speed record for resorting to that weak slur. Yes, you've got me. I've been posting as an atheist since 1992 as an elaborate ruse to try to fool people like you. I've been a paid up member of the Australian Atheist Foundation for years and have even served as a state president of the Australian Skeptics as part of this remarkable deception. But now it seems I am unmasked. Seriously, get a grip.

McReal wrote:

""A Christ": Yes, a 'Christ' allegedly executed by Pilate; not a Jesus, not a Jesus Christ, nor a Jesus the Christ."

So, by an amazing co-incidence, there were *two* groups called "Christians" who both traced their origins to a "Christ" who was executed by Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius? Amazing.

"There are plenty of assertions the Pauline epistles and the Gospels are mid-late 1st century to early 2nd century but I have never seen a cogent-inductive or valid/sound-deductive argument for those assertions."

Yes, yet again all the scholars have got it wrong. But thankfully we have random internet nobodies to show us the truth. Lucky us.