Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Nickman]

#1 - Your first line up there establishes no line at which you would believe - which is exactly the point I am making. Second, it makes no case in support of your conclusion, merely stating that you, hardly an expert, disagree with ... er, all the experts, because you are not convinced.

Saying "all the experts" is a fallacy. I don't disagree with all the experts. It's not me against the experts. My point is actually very reasonable and logical. It is those who assert with certainty that Jesus did this or Jesus was that, that are being dishonest. The reason is because we have nothing original to state what actually happened. Since you have copies of copies, you have nothing but assumption and faith. Until the evidence is conclusive, I will continue in the "I don't know and don't assert to know" camp.

Again, and very clearly, intellectually, how is that any different than saying, "Well, I don't think gravity is real. You see the evidence for it is just not convincing enough, and even though several experts have found clear evidence of it, even though it defines the very universe and how it functions, I am not convinced, for I will continue to believe that some other explanation for us sticking to the surface is a more likely conclusion than gravity ..."

Because gravity is demonstrable and independently varifiable. The NT is not. This post of yours is the reason why the NT is so subjective. You keep appealing to scholars and the few that have your same presuppositions. The NT can be interpreted in any way a person wants it to be. It is not clear cut. This is another reason why I don't take it as a work from any deity. If you read my post earlier you can see exactly why. It is not worthy of being from a being that is supposedly perfect and all-knowing. It fails IMO.

Its the same thing is it not? Notice how I don't actually address the evidence of gravity in that statement? And indeed, I can find the Wells of gravity denial.

No it's not the same thing. Denying Jesus as the son of god or his existence is
not even comparable to denying gravity. This is a false dichotomy. Gravity is demonstrable and independently verifiable by all. Apparently with Jesus, you have to learn Greek, translate to English, cross reference to other copies which don't match, interpret how you see fit and then you still have gotten nowhere. You then have to look for extra-biblical evidence which is futile and leads nowhere. In the end your left with a faith that the text you are reading is actually the same thing written in the originals which are nowhere to be found. All this work leads you to honestly say, there is no way to know if what we read is original, and true. It is dishonest for anyone, and I mean anyone, to say that they know that what they are reading in the bible is the original message. It is impossible, currently, to know this because we don't have that information. This leads back to faith. That's all you have.

#2 - God does give an instrument of evidence, its called the Holy Spirit - that is its function. So, God did exactly what you asked, knowing full well that people would ask exactly what you asked. Go figure.

The HS is not a good or optimal way to learn anything or confirm anything, because the HS is indistinguishable from human emotion. The HS tells one person one thing and the next person, the complete opposite. Evidence that is demonstrable is the best way. You stick with your HS, ill stick to logic and reason. Just don't try and spread your illogical idea, I mean HS, to me.

[skinker]

Nickman hammers some nails into the han..er, hits the nail on the head which is the complete unreliability of these Holy Spirits as far as giving the same good advice to Christian receivers. I run into this with my most dear friend who is a bonified Christian healer who hears and follows the Voice of Jesus/God in everything she does and all day long she's helping people in one way or another because she's the real deal, a real Christian doing the Christian walk. She takes all the Bible stories literally and surrounds herself in Christian propaganda via evangelical TV or listening only to Christian stations and has, like many a gullible Bible believer been turned by Republican Mammonists who are using Evangelical Christians for their numbers to install Mammonist wars and banking and stock market programs to create and benefit 2% of a country like mine, America. Christianity is supposed follow Jesus when he makes the parable point that not caring for the least in the kingdom of God is not caring about God. So my dear friend, like so many gullible Bible believers who are otherwise intelligent people let these Mammonists hoodwink them into evil, voting in terrible needless wars and creating un-Godly destruction of other peoples lives and land. So we argue, her the victim of massive propadanda coming out of those Christian stations and me the Gnostic Christian heretic with Christian visions obviously outside the traditional Pauline Christian authorized range and she'd never be my helper in my visionary work except she's seen the actual spiritual power in them that marvels and proves God is with us. Just as I see the actual spiritual power in her healings, and we have tremendous respect for one another, both Christians, both hearing the Voice of Jesus as God, and yet we hear God telling us fairly completely different things but yet we work well together on spiritual missions.

Go figure.. it's a puzzle that I haven't figured out. I'm right, they're wrong. End of story. But, but..are I, is them? Love, love, all you need is love, love, love..it's true. That's what does the trick of letting people with opposing ideas come together as friends by softening the edges with love.

So remember that as I continue to blast outdated religious ideas to smithereens, it's all done in love and I always believe We are Holy One.

Speaking of which we need to be teaching this in schools and getting rid of the Mammonists setting troubled Americans, of which there seems to be a quite large number of, over the edge with constant imagery of violence on media screens. Now the cops copy the army and the army copies the movies and the kids copy the cops and army and people are getting killed in the massive bombardment of violent imagery.

[Mithrae]

So we argue, her the victim of massive propadanda coming out of those Christian stations and me the Gnostic Christian heretic with Christian visions obviously outside the traditional Pauline Christian authorized range and she'd never be my helper in my visionary work except she's seen the actual spiritual power in them that marvels and proves God is with us. Just as I see the actual spiritual power in her healings, and we have tremendous respect for one another, both Christians, both hearing the Voice of Jesus as God, and yet we hear God telling us fairly completely different things but yet we work well together on spiritual missions.

Go figure.. it's a puzzle that I haven't figured out. I'm right, they're wrong. End of story. But, but..are I, is them? Love, love, all you need is love, love, love..it's true. That's what does the trick of letting people with opposing ideas come together as friends by softening the edges with love.

A little off-topic, but three excellent points here.

Firstly that above all the message of Jesus (and even Paul!) was about love: That before God's eyes none of us is any better because of culture, country or social status; that we can't earn his favour by religious practice; but our treatment of others and the good we can accomplish is exceptionally important.

Secondly that specific ideas or doctrines are less important than the above. Ironically I've seen many, many atheists agreeing with the most fundamentalist of Christians that God's Truth should be obvious to everyone, as Nickman is implying; that it should be black and white, right or wrong. We're all different people in different circumstances - I find it very hard to imagine why anyone, Christian or atheist, should think a deity would want us all to tread the same path.

Thirdly that such black and white thinking is extremely susceptible to propaganda and corruption. We've got religious examples from the crusades and inquisitions, non-religious examples from the likes of Stalin and Mao, and as you note an alarming trend of religious/political melding in America. That's why it's so important not to merely attack or criticise others, but to examine one's own views and beware of the log in your own eye, as it were.

[Student]

Firstly, it depends on the presumption that Josephus wouldn't have expected his readers to know of the Christian sect. Granted it was still quite insignificant by the end of the first century, but it had spread to many (most?) cities in the empire and incurred the state's disfavour at least once under Nero, perhaps lending it some notoriety. If Josephus figured that many of his readers might have heard of them, identifying this Jesus as the one called Christ would be a very simple and neutral way to identify James.

While it is based upon conjecture, I think it is a reasonable presumption.

Writing in c.115 Tacitus had to inform his readers that the Christians derived their name from one “Christus�. Such information would have been superfluous had the Romans’ knowledge of Christianity been sufficiently widespread at that time.

Given that Josephus first published AJ in Rome c.71CE, some 40 odd years before Tacitus, it is probable that even fewer Romans would have a sufficiently detailed knowledge of Christians/Christianity to recognise ‘one called the christ’ as its founder – it . Subsequently it is improbable that Josephus would have assumed that the correct derivation of the term ‘Christians’ could be left to his readers’ general knowledge.

Secondly, it may be that an original version of the passage from book 18 did mention the 'tribe of Christians' named after Jesus or something to that effect. I wouldn't use it as any kind of evidence regarding Jesus, since we can't even be sure that there was an original version, but by the same token unless we can show that there wasn't - or that it didn't mention 'christ' or 'christians' - we can't argue very convincingly that the reference in book 20 comes inexplicably out of the blue.

In AJ 18.3.3 the meaning of the line “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day� is dependent upon the earlier sentence “He was the Christ�. Without the earlier reference to ‘Christ’, the line “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him� in isolation makes absolutely no sense. Why would this tribe be named Christian after someone called Jesus?

Given that Origen clearly stated that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ I consider that it would be impossible for the first sentence “He was the Christ� to have been present in Origen’s copy of AJ.

Consequently, if “He was the Christ� is spurious then surely so must the line “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day�.

Thirdly, there's the question of what sense the passage would make without that identification of Jesus as the one called Christ. The killing of "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others" is even more uninformative. If an hypothetical original had named this Jesus as the son of Damneus, it makes corruption into the present form exceedingly unlikely except by deliberate fraud. And yet if it were deliberate Christian fraud, we wouldn't expect this bland, neutral comment on "the one called Christ" - anyone that keen to blatantly corrupt Josephus would surely have been more outspokenly Christian, as in the case of the 'Testimonium Flavianum.'

The passage at AJ 20.9.1 flows perfectly well and certainly makes good grammatical sense without the line [ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ] “the brother of Jesus the one called Christ�.

E.g.: “so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them him whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:�

If the text of Josephus was reproduced using standard stichoi of between 33 and 35 uncial letters, the highlighted passage might originally have looked similar to this:

SUNEDRIONKRITWNKAIPARAGAGWNEISAUTO

IAKWBOSONOMAAUTWKAITINASETEROUSWS

All that is required to effect the interpolation is to insert the line

TONADELFONIHSOUTOULEGOMENOUXRISTOU

, effectively as an interlinear [marginal] note, to produce the extant text:

SUNEDRIONKRITWNKAIPARAGAGWNEISAUTO
TONADELFONIHSOUTOULEGOMENOUXRISTOU
IAKWBOSONOMAAUTWKAITINASETEROUSWS

Anyone subsequently reading/copying the passage e.g. Origen, might easily assume that the interpolation was part of the original text.

Finally there's the fact that such an alteration is witnessed in no manuscripts or quotations; unlike the TF, there's simply no evidence for any changes made to this passage. Since there were fewer Christians, and hence fewer Christian scribes around in the 2nd century than in the late 3rd or early 4th, it's correspondingly less likely that they would be copying a non-Christian work and have the opportunity to change it in the first place. You've mentioned the important point which Goat somehow overlooked, that suggesting inauthenticity requires an additional, earlier alteration to the text entirely unrelated to the TF: But it seems to me that there would have been less opportunity for this to occur and much less of a reason to insert such a bland phrase.

As I’ve been informed by many a Christian apologist in the past, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

We have no Greek manuscripts from before the eleventh century. The earliest manuscripts are in Latin dating to the sixth century – so ample opportunity for interpolation especially given that these texts were only preserved by Christian scribes. As I’ve shown, it doesn’t take much to effect the change.

And once the interpolation is in place what motivation would there be to preserve ‘defective’ texts that did not include the favourable interpolation?

Without any evidence suggesting that actually happened, nor (so far as I've seen) any plausible alternative reading of the passage which wouldn't make the change even more improbable, it seems to be a case of comparing a neutral reference with early attestation of an event also known from Hegesippus... against essentially unfounded speculation. Which view is more plausible?

If we accept Hegesippus as an authentic witness then his account flatly contradicts Josephus’, other than the barest fact that James was killed.
Consequently Hegesippus [and Clement] cannot be used to indicate what the original text of Josephus contained.

Certainly in other respects Origen’s account, regarding Josephus’ attributing blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the unlawful killing of James, cannot but lead one to the conclusion that his version of AJ is not consistent with that which has survived.

So ample circumstantial evidence of possible interpolation/redaction.

[Mithrae]

Firstly, it depends on the presumption that Josephus wouldn't have expected his readers to know of the Christian sect. Granted it was still quite insignificant by the end of the first century, but it had spread to many (most?) cities in the empire and incurred the state's disfavour at least once under Nero, perhaps lending it some notoriety. If Josephus figured that many of his readers might have heard of them, identifying this Jesus as the one called Christ would be a very simple and neutral way to identify James.

While it is based upon conjecture, I think it is a reasonable presumption.

Writing in c.115 Tacitus had to inform his readers that the Christians derived their name from one “Christus�. Such information would have been superfluous had the Romans’ knowledge of Christianity been sufficiently widespread at that time.

Given that Josephus first published AJ in Rome c.71CE, some 40 odd years before Tacitus, it is probable that even fewer Romans would have a sufficiently detailed knowledge of Christians/Christianity to recognise ‘one called the christ’ as its founder – it . Subsequently it is improbable that Josephus would have assumed that the correct derivation of the term ‘Christians’ could be left to his readers’ general knowledge.

Jewish War was written around 78CE and Antiquities of the Jews was written around 93CE (source). In Antiquities Josephus is writing about the change in priesthood; James himself, being presumably the most noteworthy person among those killed, was nonetheless merely a catalyst and details of who his brother was are a point of trivia. By contrast in Tacitus' Annals the subject matter is Christians themselves as the victims of Nero's scapegoating and torture. Neglecting to mention who they were and why they were already "hated for their abominations" would have been an incomplete explanation, unless (perhaps) it was already universally known. In other words a quarter or a third of his readers already knowing about Christianity would not have been enough for Tacitus to omit such an explanation, but it very plausibly would have been enough reason for Josephus to throw in a comment about 'the one called Christ.'

Secondly, it may be that an original version of the passage from book 18 did mention the 'tribe of Christians' named after Jesus or something to that effect. I wouldn't use it as any kind of evidence regarding Jesus, since we can't even be sure that there was an original version, but by the same token unless we can show that there wasn't - or that it didn't mention 'christ' or 'christians' - we can't argue very convincingly that the reference in book 20 comes inexplicably out of the blue.

In AJ 18.3.3 the meaning of the line “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day� is dependent upon the earlier sentence “He was the Christ�. Without the earlier reference to ‘Christ’, the line “and the tribe of Christians, so named from him� in isolation makes absolutely no sense. Why would this tribe be named Christian after someone called Jesus?

Given that Origen clearly stated that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ I consider that it would be impossible for the first sentence “He was the Christ� to have been present in Origen’s copy of AJ.

Yes, but it could have said "he was called Christ" or "some considered him Christ" or, senseless as it may seem, it's not impossible that "the tribe of Christians" was mentioned without previous explanation. Without showing that none of these were the case - which I don't think we can do - we really can't argue that the reference to a christ in book 20 is unexplained.

Thirdly, there's the question of what sense the passage would make without that identification of Jesus as the one called Christ. The killing of "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others" is even more uninformative. If an hypothetical original had named this Jesus as the son of Damneus, it makes corruption into the present form exceedingly unlikely except by deliberate fraud. And yet if it were deliberate Christian fraud, we wouldn't expect this bland, neutral comment on "the one called Christ" - anyone that keen to blatantly corrupt Josephus would surely have been more outspokenly Christian, as in the case of the 'Testimonium Flavianum.'

The passage at AJ 20.9.1 flows perfectly well and certainly makes good grammatical sense without the line [ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ] “the brother of Jesus the one called Christ�.

E.g.: “so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them him whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:�

Your objection to that line is that "the brother of Jesus the one called Christ" is (supposedly) not sufficiently informative. But what you're proposing is even less informative; it contains not even a hint of who this James was or why Josephus bothered to mention him. You're contradicting your own reasoning.

Finally there's the fact that such an alteration is witnessed in no manuscripts or quotations; unlike the TF, there's simply no evidence for any changes made to this passage. Since there were fewer Christians, and hence fewer Christian scribes around in the 2nd century than in the late 3rd or early 4th, it's correspondingly less likely that they would be copying a non-Christian work and have the opportunity to change it in the first place. You've mentioned the important point which Goat somehow overlooked, that suggesting inauthenticity requires an additional, earlier alteration to the text entirely unrelated to the TF: But it seems to me that there would have been less opportunity for this to occur and much less of a reason to insert such a bland phrase.

As I’ve been informed by many a Christian apologist in the past, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

We have no Greek manuscripts from before the eleventh century. The earliest manuscripts are in Latin dating to the sixth century – so ample opportunity for interpolation especially given that these texts were only preserved by Christian scribes. As I’ve shown, it doesn’t take much to effect the change.

But between 93CE and 240CE copies of Josephus were not preserved only by Christian scribes - if anything I'd guess they would be far more preoccupied with disseminating Christian material. Any hypothetical earlier interpolation is considerably less probable than the change made during the legitimization and growing empowerment of the church in the 4th century.

Without any evidence suggesting that actually happened, nor (so far as I've seen) any plausible alternative reading of the passage which wouldn't make the change even more improbable, it seems to be a case of comparing a neutral reference with early attestation of an event also known from Hegesippus... against essentially unfounded speculation. Which view is more plausible?

If we accept Hegesippus as an authentic witness then his account flatly contradicts Josephus’, other than the barest fact that James was killed.
Consequently Hegesippus [and Clement] cannot be used to indicate what the original text of Josephus contained.

Certainly in other respects Origen’s account, regarding Josephus’ attributing blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the unlawful killing of James, cannot but lead one to the conclusion that his version of AJ is not consistent with that which has survived.

So ample circumstantial evidence of possible interpolation/redaction.

Obviously Hegesippus' account seems highly embellished in its details, but since Paul names James as first among the 'pillars' of the church, we have ample reason to suppose that something about his death would be remembered in the church. In its barebones elements, Hegesippus' account agrees with the extant text of Josephus that James the brother of Jesus was unlawfully killed by the religious authorities, not long before the war.

It seems probable, as you've alluded, that Origen had read Hegesippus' account also and incorrectly attributes an association between James and the war to Josephus. But that's an inference we might expect to stick in the mind of a Christian author, if only in order to refute it (as Origen does) by saying the war was punishment for Jesus' death. If you're suggesting that Origen's copy of Josephus was not the same as what we've got today, then you must be implying that there were three changes to the text!? One before Origen inserting Jesus/christ and blame for the war, one after it which removed blame for the war but kept Jesus/christ and of course the TF (for which we have actual evidence).

I think it's far more plausible to propose that while Origen was explicitly referencing Josephus the Jew's Antiquities, he mistakenly included a memorable element from Hegesippus, than some convoluted series of changes to the text of Josephus. Minds are more malleable than manuscripts

[stubbornone]

Saying "all the experts" is a fallacy. I don't disagree with all the experts. It's not me against the experts. My point is actually very reasonable and logical. It is those who assert with certainty that Jesus did this or Jesus was that, that are being dishonest. The reason is because we have nothing original to state what actually happened. Since you have copies of copies, you have nothing but assumption and faith. Until the evidence is conclusive, I will continue in the "I don't know and don't assert to know" camp.

Agh, yeah, you do. You've clearly not read the material I have provided for you a half dozen times right here on this thread ... and yet you claim that you are driven by evidence? Wells is a professor of German, and his is the only serious work that has actively called Jesus a Myth. The Columbia professor you guys are so interested in, merely questions some of the historical accounts but does not pass into active Jesus Conspiracy.

So yes, It is YOU against the experts. and why everyone who is expert can be convinced by the evidence, while you claim the opposite with ZERO expertise is ... called an argument from the absurd.

Because gravity is demonstrable and independently varifiable. The NT is not. This post of yours is the reason why the NT is so subjective. You keep appealing to scholars and the few that have your same presuppositions. The NT can be interpreted in any way a person wants it to be. It is not clear cut. This is another reason why I don't take it as a work from any deity. If you read my post earlier you can see exactly why. It is not worthy of being from a being that is supposedly perfect and all-knowing. It fails IMO.

Nope. We all know that things adhering to the Earths surface are caused by invisible glue. I mean gravity is just as invisible right? So when you pull away from this invisible glue it tends to pull you back into position ...

And that would be what we call an argument from absurdity. And its amazing how you will use it to deny Jesus even as you take logical exception to it elsewhere.

But then, that is exactly the point with Jesus Conspiracy.

No it's not the same thing. Denying Jesus as the son of god or his existence is
not even comparable to denying gravity. This is a false dichotomy. Gravity is demonstrable and independently verifiable by all. Apparently with Jesus, you have to learn Greek, translate to English, cross reference to other copies which don't match, interpret how you see fit and then you still have gotten nowhere. You then have to look for extra-biblical evidence which is futile and leads nowhere. In the end your left with a faith that the text you are reading is actually the same thing written in the originals which are nowhere to be found. All this work leads you to honestly say, there is no way to know if what we read is original, and true. It is dishonest for anyone, and I mean anyone, to say that they know that what they are reading in the bible is the original message. It is impossible, currently, to know this because we don't have that information. This leads back to faith. That's all you have.

No, it not.

#1 - There is a strong evidential record for Jesus and his ministry.

#2 - There is no credible alternative theory to the basis of Christianity other than Jesus.

#3 - The only part you doubt are those that cannot be verified one way or the other, and even though we see the records are taxingly honest ... you doubt them anyway.

That is not evidence, its finding an excuse to deny at all costs. Its why its a conspiracy theory.

The HS is not a good or optimal way to learn anything or confirm anything, because the HS is indistinguishable from human emotion. The HS tells one person one thing and the next person, the complete opposite. Evidence that is demonstrable is the best way. You stick with your HS, ill stick to logic and reason. Just don't try and spread your illogical idea, I mean HS, to me.

Well, given that he has given you boat loads of information and testimonies and you still doubt, and will even if God himself appears, smacked you upside the head and told you it was real ... seems God knew there would be so called evidenced driven people like you ... and thus he made the HS.

So you neither like, nor will indeed read, the evidence provided, and you don;t like the HS either.

Serial denial.

[historia]

I am in the camp of I don't know if Jesus existed or not. The evidence to me is inconclusive.

This, to me, is the essential point of misunderstanding in this debate.

We cannot "know" what happened in the past. We cannot recreate the past, and therefore can never have absolute certainty about what "actually" happened. When dealing with ancient history, in particular, our sources are so few and far between that everything is "inconclusive."

The best we can do is look at the available evidence and determine what is the most likely explanation. That's all historians can ever do.

The most likely explanation for the available evidence is that Jesus existed. That is why the overwhelming majority of scholars hold this position.

[Nickman]

I am in the camp of I don't know if Jesus existed or not. The evidence to me is inconclusive.

This, to me, is the essential point of misunderstanding in this debate.

We cannot "know" what happened in the past. We cannot recreate the past, and therefore can never have absolute certainty about what "actually" happened. When dealing with ancient history, in particular, our sources are so few and far between that everything is "inconclusive."

The best we can do is look at the available evidence and determine what is the most likely explanation. That's all historians can ever do.

The most likely explanation for the available evidence is that Jesus existed. That is why the overwhelming majority of scholars hold this position.

With Jesus, there are even more factors to consider such as, blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record, the earliest writings we have, by Paul, do not speak of his earthly life, and the extraordinary claims made pertaining to his life. We must consider all of these. Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources? If Jesus was infact real, then this seems unnecessary let alone dishonest.

[99percentatheism]

Nickman
You keep appealing to scholars and the few that have your same presuppositions. The NT can be interpreted in any way a person wants it to be.

It is not clear cut.

Please show how the NT could portray a Jesus that is anything other than what it reports him to be?

It is not clear cut? Really?

Please show how you are right on that assertion.

[Nickman]

Agh, yeah, you do. You've clearly not read the material I have provided for you a half dozen times right here on this thread ... and yet you claim that you are driven by evidence? Wells is a professor of German, and his is the only serious work that has actively called Jesus a Myth. The Columbia professor you guys are so interested in, merely questions some of the historical accounts but does not pass into active Jesus Conspiracy.

So yes, It is YOU against the experts. and why everyone who is expert can be convinced by the evidence, while you claim the opposite with ZERO expertise is ... called an argument from the absurd.

No, you keep posting anti-Wells material which means nothing to me because I am not in his camp. How many times do I need to say that? You keep bringing him up in the argument when it is pointless. I don't care what he says or what anyone says against him and his work. Can you understand that?

The Columbia Professor you must be speaking of is Bart Erhman I suppose?

It is not me against anyone when I claim, "I don't know". It is those that claim certainty that can either be for or against a certain subject.

Just because someone is convinced by the evidence doesn't mean I have to just jump right in as you do. Claiming certainty to the historicity of Jesus is dishonest. The reason is because we don't have original documents, or extra-biblical sources. Without these two, all you can do is claim certainty via faith, which is not certainty. You seem to think that Jesus' actual existence has been establish as fact. This is not true. The truth of the matter is, that we have evidence and based on that evidence we have two sides. Some see the evidence as confirmation for his existence, while others see it as confirmation of his non-existence. I see it as inconclusive. That is not an argument from the absurd. I am simply not convinced either way, and whether or not he did actually exist does not mean much to me. I still refuse and refute his divinity and son-ship.

Nope. We all know that things adhering to the Earths surface are caused by invisible glue. I mean gravity is just as invisible right? So when you pull away from this invisible glue it tends to pull you back into position ...

And that would be what we call an argument from absurdity. And its amazing how you will use it to deny Jesus even as you take logical exception to it elsewhere.

But then, that is exactly the point with Jesus Conspiracy.

That is absurd and also in no way comparable to the Jesus argument. It is a false dichotomy.

No, it not.

#1 - There is a strong evidential record for Jesus and his ministry.

Which is?

#2 - There is no credible alternative theory to the basis of Christianity other than Jesus.

I could think of several. This is just a false statement.
One would be that Paul started Christianity without a historical Jesus and later One was added. This is actually what happens in the historical record. Paul's gospel comes first and then later we see Mark, and then the other gospels.

#3 - The only part you doubt are those that cannot be verified one way or the other, and even though we see the records are taxingly honest ... you doubt them anyway.

You have no idea what records I have or have not seen so this statement is erroneous. Which records do you suppose are "taxingly honest"?

That is not evidence, its finding an excuse to deny at all costs. Its why its a conspiracy theory.

I am about tired of you claiming what I do and do not believe and what I find as evidence. I also find it dishonest for you to tell me that I am making excuses. You seem to be set on making me believe what you do. You seem to want me to take the evidence the same way you do. Newsflash, I don't. I find your conclusions based on faith, for reasons I gave earlier.

Well, given that he has given you boat loads of information and testimonies and you still doubt, and will even if God himself appears, smacked you upside the head and told you it was real ... seems God knew there would be so called evidenced driven people like you ... and thus he made the HS.

So you neither like, nor will indeed read, the evidence provided, and you don;t like the HS either.

Serial denial.

The HS has given me nothing because to me the HS doesn't exist. The HS, if real, gives every person completely differing ideas. This is fact. Each person from every denomination has a differing idea that may contradict anothers, and yet they claim the HS guided them to this knowledge. The HS cannot be differentiated from simple human emotion. I have wrote about this in other threads. I have tested the concept of the HS exhaustively to verify that what I was feeling could be verified as an outside force from god. It fails everytime. It is based on human emotion and not in evidence.