Pretty slim pickin', mjbp.

>>Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the author of the Jewish Talmud<<

Before we go any further, I'd just like to confirm that these are the ten "early non Christian writers who mention Jesus"?

I'm not mistaken in that?

OK, what have we got.

Josephus: "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James". Check. And "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man" Check. (We can leave the arguments over what comes after this, for another time)

Tacitus: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate" We have a Christus. But no mention of Jesus.

Pliny: "they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god". Likewise.

I'll give you points for both these though, on the assumption that Christus might be our man.

Phlegon: Nope. Not a single mention.

Thallus: Nothing.

Suetonius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" Is this the right guy? Possibly. But getting wobblier.

Lucian: "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" But who? Who? Tantalizing.

Celsus: This is a tough one, since it is all in the form of Origen's refutation. More hearsay that anything else. And not a particularly flattering view of Jesus either, come to think of it.

Mara Bar-Serapion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?" Jesus? Not a mention, just a reference. Could have been a judgement on hearsay.

Talmud: no mention, just a fleeting glimpse of a possibility of someone fitting the description.

In all that, only one Jesus.

Listen, it matters not at all to me that you believe that Jesus did all the stuff the gospels tell. But when you suggest there is evidence that does not need a leap of faith to swallow, I have to protest.

>>The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest<<

But in fact, it shows the exact opposite.

mjpb,
I agree, my analogy should not go so far as to regard atheism a disability. Those who admit lacking something (as we have seen, some atheists call this something just “belief”) cannot be expected to see that something in a positive light, although those of us who do not lack it can and should. Apparently, by “shaving away some annoying bs“ you meant what I called clarifying the language and/or broadening the perspective (on both sides of the dispute).

As to “scripture as historical evidence”, I think one should differentiate: You can discuss historical evidence related to the life and actions of a man called Yeshua or Jesus, scrutinising all sorts of texts, including the scripture, but that can be properly done only by professional historians. I am certainly not one, so am grateful to Pericles for the explicit quotes. Anyhow, whatever conclusions and agreements one can arrive at, they could not be used as evidence supporting either the theist or atheist, Christian or non-Christian, positions. They can enrich one’s understanding of history, and - if one is a Christian - enhance the rational component of one’s faith. As with the findings of science.

Another thing is the New Testament as (an a priori) evidence. This does not make much sense to an atheist, actually any non-Christian, and also for Christians there are lots of ambiguities. Exegesis deals with them. Even the Pope - whose academic specialty is biblical exegesis - accompanied his last book (Jesus of Nazareth, Doubleday 2007) with the very explicit instruction that it is just a contribution to the discussion, not a “teaching of the Church”. Of course, exegesis can function only on the background of historical scholarship.

david f,
>>Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why.<<
Neither can I, except that there is not only a biological, but also a psychological complementarity, not mutual replaceability, between the genders (Yin-Yang), and Christianity (like other religions) caters to both. For instance, my grandmother taught me what I understand now to be the Yin of Christianity, my father the Yang of it.

Dear George,

Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry? How much of your Christian belief do you think is a function of your ancestry?

Dear david f.

>> Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry?<<
Yes, and I came to the conclusion that if I had e.g. Chinese ancestry I would be Chinese.

>> How much of your Christian belief do you think is a function of your ancestry?<<
About the same as my ability to speak more languages, understand some mathematics, be open-minded towards other beliefs and world-views, etc. are to a great deal a function of those (parents, teachers, authors of books) who have influenced me throughout my life, but especially during my formative years.

George wrote:

>> Have you done the thought experiment of having non-Christian ancestry?<<
Yes, and I came to the conclusion that if I had e.g. Chinese ancestry I would be Chinese.

Dear George,

You really haven't done the experiment. One can be both Chinese and Christian. A person can be born Chinese. A baby has no religion.

Dear david f,

Of course, I had the Chinese cultural background in mind, and not the race, since that is what you were hinting at. And, of course, a baby is born without any culture: it comes with genes but not with memes.