So, your central argument, Trav, is that barely literate, Bronze Age tribal societies produced more accurate historical records than the structured academic enquiry of the modern era, and that oral information is more reliable than written, even after half a century of circulation?

When will you be abandoning Christianity to take up the beliefs of Aboriginal Australians? Their myths must be straight from the mouth of god!

Oliver, you've got it backwards- there would've been a riot had Jesus NOT been crucified. Remember, it was mainly the crowd, NOT Pilate who wanted Jesus dead. Jesus did at least four major things which were utterly offensive to the Jewish religious establishment during passover week, hence why they baying for his blood. The fact that Jesus was doing these offensive things during passover week made the crowd want him crucified more not less.

Regarding the Mithras/Dionysus myths, if you have a look into those further you'll find there's absolutely no substance to it. For starters, there are no solid historical records of any of those Gods being resurrected before 200AD. Goto YouTube and type in "Habermas/Callaghan debate" and you'll find a snippet from Lee Strobel's old program Faith Under Fire, where this subject is debated. Callaghan is pressed continually, but is unable to actually provide any evidence for this myth claim.

re: Gospel of Thomas, this is most reliably dated in the Mid Second century. Some date it earlier, but the strongest arguments by far put it over 100 years after Jesus. It really doesn't tell us much about the Historical Jesus at all. But if you think it does- why? What does it tell us?

Sancho, you'll need to clarify your comment for me. Why have you set up a false dichotomy between trusting ancient historical records, and "structured academic enquiry"? I'm not sure where you're going with this- please tease this out further and explain it's relevance to the discussion.

<”stormbay, just confirming that I am reading you correctly here: Are you suggesting that all the verifiable historical evidence shows Jesus was not crucified?”>

Trav, the story doesn't fit the known facts. Herod was dead years before the event. In all the recorded documentation of the time kept by Herod's kingdom, the Romans and two Jewish tribes of Herod's kingdom makes no mention of any such event or a Jesus.

Herod was a king, he ruled over his kingdom not the Romans, he was a friend of Rome not conquered. Therefore Pilates had no say in the law of the land and Herod had no need to turn to Pilates for a judgement, he metered out his own punishment and it is well documented.

The official documentation around Pilates never mentions anything about the event, nor does the more then 30 documented writers of the time in the exact area. Herod married the daughter of one of the chiefs of the Jewish tribes and they make no mention of any event written in the bible.

The more than 100 documented writers of the time around the area make no mention of anything surrounding the bible, nor does any Roman document and they kept meticulous records.

If god and jesus are so great, you'd have thought they could easily leave real evidence. An event like the loaves and fishes, would have been headlined everywhere with such a large group of people attending. But there is no mention of anything ever. It's the same with Paulini, Josephus and others, they never met him any fleeting mention, is hearsay many years later. The section in Josephus writings has been debunked as having been added by the church, they determine that by the linguistics and writing style of the various times.

Look at the historical acts and outcomes from this belief, and you find nothing to support it's credibility in any way. When you have to fake evidence, your veracity goes out the window.

Thanks stormbay, I was about to make the same points, but far less eloquently than you have.

Trav, your approach to history reflects your desire that the foundations of your faith are based in accurately recorded events. You might have to accept that historical precision is not only impossible, but entirely unnecessary. Then you won't have to have these arguments all the time.

As Sells' himself points out in his article.

Here's his take on the central focus of an entire religion:

"My contention is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an event that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about its reality or not, but rather is based on the subjective; the experience of the presence of Christ."

Given this approach, why would you not treat the entire story in the same manner. What would you lose?

To paraphrase Sells a little...

"My contention is that all the stories about Jesus Christ are not events that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about their reality or not, but rather are based on the subjective"

This attitude would be far less stressful, I would suggest.

Look at Sells. The very model of stress-free Christianity.

I have pointed out in another thread some of the many flaws in the Bible...

Storm Boy very succinctly outlines the failing in the historical record.

But even the Bible lets down the notion of a resurrection even if a crucifixion did take place.

John 19:30, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46 all state Jesus died. (I haven't checked every version)

What was in the wine (vinegar)that they put to Jesus' lips?

Mark 15:23 mentions the oil Myrrh - http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=167&othername=Myrrh%20(Botanical:%20Commiphora%20Molmol). but Jesus allegedly wouldn't drink it.

Matthew 27:34 mentions gall (hemlock)http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7219.htm Gall means bitter but hemlock (a poison) can cause unconsciousness and death. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821362-overview Jesus tasted it but wouldn't drink it.

John 19:39 "...Nicodemus took Myrrh and Aloes" Myrrh has antiseptic qualities and alloes have healing properties (not embalmers) http://www.peacehealth.org/KBASE/cam/hn-2036003.htm

Matthew 27:48 One of the crowd took a sponge dipped in cheap wine and soon after died.

Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified?

Of course then there is this problem

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

With more explanations here

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

Followed by this (ah human's nothing like a good alleged fraud)

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1850111,00.html

It all makes a wonderful story, but if the Bible is flawed in so many areas, why wouldn't it be flawed in the alleged historical account of the alleged Jesus.

opinionated, your last link leads to this link

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

with this quote...<<A leading New Testament expert from Princeton Theological Seminary,Prof.James Charlesworth,was intrigued enough to organize a conference in Jerusalem this week,..bringing together over 50 archeologists,statisticians and experts in DNA,ceramics and ancient languages,..to give evidence as to whether or not the crypt of Christ had been found...

..Their task was complicated by the fact that since the tomb was opened in 1980,the bones of the various ossuaries had gone missing through a mishap of Israeli bureaucracy....>>..LOL,if NOT real proof what would they have to fear?these acts alone prove some validity[israel authorities]..mate,should have protected the evidence better..[be it true or faulse]

<<Also gone were diagrams made by excavators that showed where each stone sarcophagus lay inside the tomb,and what the family relationships might have been,...>>lol..one needs to think why stuff around and hide the info SO VITAL TO XTIANS yet possably so dangerouse to israel

it disapearing gives it validation..[for if it proves nothing why disappear the evidence..[someone got frightend and made real attempt to hide the stuff,..perhaps even for good[ill]reasons..as well as organise the rebuttal[and articles etc]

it sounds suss

[who gains?,..who stands to lose?,..who fears the info?,

if untrue why hide it?..israel authorities couldnt be that dumb[but in this case clearly are,or are risking for it to appear so..[why?]