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.

[Mithrae]

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not call Eusebius a pious fraud. Are you just parrotting that same anti-Christian page which Historia has already called into question?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... flavianum/

Ill have to admit I did not have a proper source and in such admittance ill state that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not state was a pious fraud. For that I apologize.

There is no reference given for that Warburton quote either, and I haven't found any reference (or even a more complete quote) anywhere else online. Please provide references, or else don't expect anyone to believe the trash you're parrotting when some of it is so easily seen as blatant lies.

Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

Thankyou; so it seems that your earlier quote -
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
- was also a falsehood parrotted (I would guess) from the page which had already been criticised on grounds of inaccuracy and bias.

I still think there are some variables that can make Tacitus account less reliable. That would be that he didn't live during the time of Christ and therefore HAD to other sources. What those sources are we cannot say. His account is second hand on the subject of Jesus since he was wasn't there. This is a fact. It is believed he had his sources in the Atna Senatus which are the roman records but they don't speak of Jesus. Wouldnt the Atna Senatus be a great place to find JESUS? Yet it is not there.

The Atna Senatus. Right. Y'know, I can't find anything there.

Acta Senatus I must have mispelled by accident. Im on my tablet so typing has its difficulties.
It is believed that the Acta Pilati aka Gospel of Nicodemus was made because these acta say nothing. We know the Acta Pilati to be written much later and possibly to counter the lack of Roman sources.

It is absurd to suggest that the Senate in Rome should have spent any time discussing a Galilean preacher.

The New Testament describes Jesus as Christ hundreds of times, in numerous different ways. That is the most neutral one of them all, the least distinctively Christian. It's not even coincidence that there's a similarity; I'd be very surprised if anyone could mention Jesus as Christ without finding some similarity in the New Testament. You're grasping at straws here.

• Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)

My point is made in the evidence you provided. He is also called Jesus Christ. The fact that it is Christian in very nature textually, and in Josephus works gives creedence to my argument. Why would the exact Christian concept and construction found in the gospels find its way into Josephus.

Why would Josephus say that Jesus was called Christ? Gee... let's think about that for a bit, shall we? Maybe because Jesus was called Christ? Nah, that couldn't possibly be the reason It's obviously Christians' handiwork, because another Christian wrote it once.

You're not even bothering to think about this or respond to my points, are you? If Josphus were talking about important members of the Sanhedrin, we'd expect an explanation why the priests were killing each other off. You yourself claimed that "he always explains everything he writes," so you're just contradicting your own reasoning by suggesting that he wrote about internal priestly feuds without explanation. Obviously, James and the others are not big concern for Josephus: His readers might guess who he was either from an unaltered original reference to Jesus and the "tribe of Christians" in book 18, or from vague general knowledge about this sect Nero had persecuted. But if they didn't understand, it's not important to the story - their deaths were merely the catalyst for the change in priesthood, not some deadly rivalry in Jewish high society.

James and Jesus are explained as to who they are. Jesus is the brother of James and sons of Damneus. The Jesus in the first section is the same as the second. There is no reason to make Jesus the Christ. By taking out the words "who is called christ" the text becomes more clear. By adding this phrase, the text becomes off subject and unclear. Now there are two Jesus'. The first Jesus is the one who is also given the high priest position.

If you repeat yourself a few more times it'll stop being self-contradictory speculation and start being fact. You're claiming that the Jewish priesthood were killing each other off. To do this you need to remove some words from the text of Josephus and, contrary to your previous reasoning, suppose that Josephus simply didn't bother to explain why. It is an absurd position.

Would you hark at the man! He who was earlier arguing from English grammar that "who was called Christ" must refer to James rather than Jesus is now suddenly (though again on the basis that it's "ungrammatical" in English translation) without doubt that the phrase is an interpolation.

You've really got the hang of how this 'evidence' thing works, don't you? Mere mortals just can't keep up!
:slap:

I think we've reached the point where reason will not produce any better results. Nevertheless, it's been fun

Yes, as it stands it would refer to James. I contend it doesn't stand as such, and is an interpolation. Your misrepresenting my argument in a very bad way. It's not hard to understand. If we were to agree that the text is not interpolated, then it would refer to James on grammatical grounds. That is the argument.

And it's been refuted, much as you'd like to ignore it.

• Mithrae wrote:
  Yes, I noticed your earlier attempts to argue against the normal understanding of Josephus by applying English grammar to a translation of a Greek work. Fortunately for us both (though you seem to have missed it) one of our members actually knows what he's talking about:
  
  Student wrote:
  *[On a purely grammatical note, in the Greek text of 20.9.1, the word ‘christ’ cannot refer to James. In the phrase Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ all the words, including Jesus, are in the genitive case. This agreement in case requires the term “the one called christ� to be applied to the genitive Ἰησοῦ.]

You've claimed that you are honestly undecided about Jesus' existence and think it could go either way. But we have seen that your "honest" scepticism is directly only against Christian views; that you'll fully endorse contrary views on the flimsiest of pretexts. We've seen proof of this from the following points:

> Ongoing insistence without evidence that Eusebius "most likely" forged the TF
> Parrotting falsehoods from obviously dubious sites to 'support' that view
> Being "without doubt," against most scholars' views, that Antiquities 20 was altered
> Numerous counts of absurd arguments to support that view and ignoring contrary points

[stubbornone]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.

In short, you would rather continue engaging about matters of minutia while ignoring the major scholarship on the subject.

I have addressed your arguments. And indeed find your avoidance of simple logical analysis and inferrence to be quite ... in line with Jesus Myther conspiracy.

For example, your 'acceptance' of Paul's letters, and then your utter refusal, quoted for you by an ATHEIST historian, about how those letters are used a foundation to verify other sources ... you response?

"Oh, I have already made my arguments!" You have not made any argument whatsoever about how Paul's letters are used to verify anything at all.

"I am tired of you avoiding my arguments!" Who exactly is avoiding arguments?

Asked for a major Christian Scholar whose works you are familiar with and that you find lacking? You list .... no one.

Simply put, just as you are doing with me the same you are doing with the evidence for Jesus - ignoring anything that might challenge your preconceptions - which belies your claim to being evidenced driven.

Its what Jesus Mythers do. Hardly a shock.

Given a chance to address major Christian Scholarship, to demonstrate some hole in the logic used to verify Christ ... and you are simply looking to redefine accepted scholarship by casting aspirations from an inexpert base.

Atheism itself is fine - but the form of atheism that leads people to the Jesus Myth ... Not sure what that is, but it is absolutely silly.

I am first debating the actual references which are out of date to show they are incorrect and/or unreliable and then I will address those actual contemporary writers who mention nothing, to further my argument. I must first address those that say something (which never met Jesus and are removed from him by many many years)then those who say nothing (who were with him at the same time)will further my point.

In conclusion I will show that all one has is Paul by himself, and that's it.

So let me debate and make my points before you try to rush me to where you want me to go. In due time you'll see.

Really, so after giving you historical sources you are telling me they are out of date based on ... what? Your magic carbon dating? You given a source with dozens of documents, and you claim that the entirety of Christian history hangs on Paul?

Rush you to where I want to go? No offense Nick, but you are now literally just making things up in the fly.

Let me re-print that section for you for the eight time - I'll highlight the key words for you:

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

So here we are at the beginning, and you are claiming that you are being rushed to the finish?

You have no thesis - you have no evidence - you are not rebutting any established scholarship - and the sources you do delve into appear to be gleaned from Wikipedia rather than actual study, and are minutia and obscure - and then your professed judgement of what they mean, with no basis for making such a claim, are supposed to be taken as gospel - because you, the great truth seeker have decided what documents mean and say ... and people with Ph.D's are idiots?

As I said, whatever it is driving the Jesus Myth, it isn't logic or evidence.

Let me remind you what logic is, and why it is necessary for discussion involving historical figures.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Social ... Logic.html

So you are all over the place, from Torphy to Paul, and making no claims or inferences about anything - simply pulling a Wells and finding any old excuse to avoid every bit of evidence presented.

And your premise, if you spell it out, is that Jesus is a myth (or not, because you appear to be changing what you are saying)? Now, you appear to be saying that Paul invented everything out of hat?

Peter, the founder of the Catholic Church must therefore also be an invention of Paul's? All of the early Christian figures are just made up? And when a man did this, of course, no one wrote about it the time and there is indeed no evidence of such a broad conspiracy in the slightest. The very premise is absurd. (Thus the Jesus Myth)

So how about instead of making high sounding remarks about 'scholarship' and how you are driven by 'evidence', how about you just spell it out?

Present you case instead of playing atheists baseball, wherein you think 'scholarship' is finding excuses to ignore things. That is not scholarship, its called an argument from absurdity.

Well, that is the claim from Paul.. and I am sure that is the theological belief he pushed. However, he admitted he never knew "Jesus in the flesh". The details he gives about what Jesus taught is sketchy at best. .. and there is some minor gushing about the requirements that Jesus allegedly did to qualify for being the Messiah..

Now, Paul was pushing a religious agenda, just like some other writers.. such as Joseph smith, Sun Yen Moon and Mohammed. Do you have any independent confirmation that the person he is talking about actually exists?

No, but he did know the Apostles, and he does testify that what they wrote was accurate. Hence, his letters which can be verified as his are used not so much as proof of Jesus in and of himself, but as verification of the claims made in the Synoptic gospel. That is why it BEGINS there, and does not END there.

It really would help if at least one of the Jesus Mythers was actually familiar enough with the Christian argumentation in support of Jesus to actually understand enough of the case to properly disagree with it. Alas, that is clearly not the case - and never is with Jesus conspiracy.

So, the only agenda I see being pushed is the anti-religious, anti-intellectualism of an extreme brand of atheism who finds no healthier alternative with their faith than launching ridiculous attacks on the basis of other people's faith.

Not only is the argumentation shoddy, so is the intent behind it.

[Goat]

Josephus, Paul, and Acts is more than adequate to reasonably infer the historicity (as opposed to the divinity) of Jesus.

Josephus appears to have been modified.. and therefore the source is too corrupted to be able to use as evidence.


Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..


"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.


And Acts bases a lot of what is said on Paul, and is not a primary, or even secondary source. ..



So, no.. those three sources are not 'good enough' by any means.

If you're going to use Paul's words against him then we'll use his words earlier in Romans 3 to conclude with you that we all are liars and we can't trust each other. So what's the point in discussing?

It's possible I don't understand the passage correctly. Is it possible you misunderstand Paul's meaning, in context not out of context?

Well, if we are going to use Pauls words, ,I would say that Paul has the authority to speak of himself, and not me.. and by Romans 3, we can conclude that Paul is a liar at least. There is a psychological term that describes when people attribute their faults onto everyone else. This is known as Psychological Projection

But Romans 3:7 is actually not saying others are lying, but rather trying to excuse his lying for 'the glory of God'. . IMO, if God is real, he doesn't need someone to lie for him..

[Dokimas]

Well, if we are going to use Pauls words, ,I would say that Paul has the authority to speak of himself, and not me.. and by Romans 3, we can conclude that Paul is a liar at least. There is a psychological term that describes when people attribute their faults onto everyone else. This is known as Psychological Projection

But Romans 3:7 is actually not saying others are lying, but rather trying to excuse his lying for 'the glory of God'. . IMO, if God is real, he doesn't need someone to lie for him..

If you'll notice I said earlier in chpt 3. Look at verse 3.

So you've never lied.

Paul's not saying he lies for God. He's saying the God uses sinners for His glory. The word glory is doxa. Part of the understanding of doxa is opinion. When a sinner has his/her life changed by the love of God as understood by shedding of the Blood of Jesus, God is best understood thus revealing a correct opinion of God and His grace.

[stubbornone]

Josephus, Paul, and Acts is more than adequate to reasonably infer the historicity (as opposed to the divinity) of Jesus.

Josephus appears to have been modified.. and therefore the source is too corrupted to be able to use as evidence.


Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..


"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.


And Acts bases a lot of what is said on Paul, and is not a primary, or even secondary source. ..



So, no.. those three sources are not 'good enough' by any means.

If you're going to use Paul's words against him then we'll use his words earlier in Romans 3 to conclude with you that we all are liars and we can't trust each other. So what's the point in discussing?

It's possible I don't understand the passage correctly. Is it possible you misunderstand Paul's meaning, in context not out of context?

Well, if we are going to use Pauls words, ,I would say that Paul has the authority to speak of himself, and not me.. and by Romans 3, we can conclude that Paul is a liar at least. There is a psychological term that describes when people attribute their faults onto everyone else. This is known as Psychological Projection

But Romans 3:7 is actually not saying others are lying, but rather trying to excuse his lying for 'the glory of God'. . IMO, if God is real, he doesn't need someone to lie for him..

I didn't. I used Paul, as do scholars, as a place to begin, as they are verified, to verify other sources.

I can only assume that the inability to take what has been written repeatedly and clearly, something that forms the very basis of Christian historiography, is deliberate.

Its why most major period historians ignore Jesus Mythers entirely.

Its nothing but a over zealous few faithless do in order to maintain their emotional conspiracy. Simple as that.

As we can see, and as scholars have routinely noted, that an attempt to engage those mired in mindless conspiracy, there is no one actually listening or looking for the truth ... hence the repeated and quite deliberate misunderstandings. Par for the conspiratorial course.

[Nickman]

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not call Eusebius a pious fraud. Are you just parrotting that same anti-Christian page which Historia has already called into question?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... flavianum/

Ill have to admit I did not have a proper source and in such admittance ill state that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not state was a pious fraud. For that I apologize.

There is no reference given for that Warburton quote either, and I haven't found any reference (or even a more complete quote) anywhere else online. Please provide references, or else don't expect anyone to believe the trash you're parrotting when some of it is so easily seen as blatant lies.

Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

Thankyou; so it seems that your earlier quote -
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
- was also a falsehood parrotted (I would guess) from the page which had already been criticised on grounds of inaccuracy and bias.

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct. This however is the full quote and still plays on my part. It seems that my source paraphrased the quote and didn't change its meaning one bit. Either way, doesn't matter.

It is absurd to suggest that the Senate in Rome should have spent any time discussing a Galilean preacher.

Yeah, since they wrote about all provinces in the Roman empire. Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government. Not to mention the fact that the Acta Pilate aka Gospel of Nicodemus was written, which we know to be false.

The New Testament describes Jesus as Christ hundreds of times, in numerous different ways. That is the most neutral one of them all, the least distinctively Christian. It's not even coincidence that there's a similarity; I'd be very surprised if anyone could mention Jesus as Christ without finding some similarity in the New Testament. You're grasping at straws here.

• Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)

You keep furthering my argument. You cannot find a single extrabiblical source that uses the
ame terminology. That is how he was called among the Christians.

Why would Josephus say that Jesus was called Christ? Gee... let's think about that for a bit, shall we? Maybe because Jesus was called Christ? Nah, that couldn't possibly be the reason It's obviously Christians' handiwork, because another Christian wrote it once.

I doubt a Jew would call him Christ in the same sense and terminology as the gospels. Furthermore, I have already pointed out how the phrase is not necessary to the story, and is out of place. The Jesus in the story already is identified.

If you repeat yourself a few more times it'll stop being self-contradictory speculation and start being fact. You're claiming that the Jewish priesthood were killing each other off. To do this you need to remove some words from the text of Josephus and, contrary to your previous reasoning, suppose that Josephus simply didn't bother to explain why. It is an absurd position.

No, James was not part of the sanhedrin. James put Ananus in a bad place not by his own will. Ananus was quick to temper and pass judgment. The people were uneasy at this and because of such they implored of Albinus to remove him. Albinus did and as is custom with Jewish culture his brother was recompensed, his name was Jesus as was already spoken of earlier in the text. Making this Jesus into the one in the gospels turns the whole story upside down.

And it's been refuted, much as you'd like to ignore it.

• Mithrae wrote:
  Yes, I noticed your earlier attempts to argue against the normal understanding of Josephus by applying English grammar to a translation of a Greek work. Fortunately for us both (though you seem to have missed it) one of our members actually knows what he's talking about:
  
  Student wrote:
  *[On a purely grammatical note, in the Greek text of 20.9.1, the word ‘christ’ cannot refer to James. In the phrase Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ all the words, including Jesus, are in the genitive case. This agreement in case requires the term “the one called christ� to be applied to the genitive Ἰησοῦ.]

The text, "the one called christ" is a reference to book 18 if 18 were actually written by Josephus. Also James is alluded to as "one called James" that and being the brother of Jesus son of Damneus identifies him completely to the reader. Both the phrase "brother of Jesus" and ""who is called Christ" are both attached to James in the text. Is brother of JESUS not attributed to James. The subject is James not Jesus.

You've claimed that you are honestly undecided about Jesus' existence and think it could go either way. But we have seen that your "honest" scepticism is directly only against Christian views; that you'll fully endorse contrary views on the flimsiest of pretexts. We've seen proof of this from the following points:

> Ongoing insistence without evidence that Eusebius "most likely" forged the TF
> Parrotting falsehoods from obviously dubious sites to 'support' that view
> Being "without doubt," against most scholars' views, that Antiquities 20 was altered
> Numerous counts of absurd arguments to support that view and ignoring contrary points

Part of getting to the facts is viewing both sides. I am presenting the opposite side and some of the facts lead to no Jesus while some lead to maybe Jesus. So far I have seen nothing that makes an argument that anyone can use as Jesus being a real person.

[Mithrae]

Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

Thankyou; so it seems that your earlier quote -
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
- was also a falsehood parrotted (I would guess) from the page which had already been criticised on grounds of inaccuracy and bias.

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct. This however is the full quote and still plays on my part. It seems that my source paraphrased the quote and didn't change its meaning one bit. Either way, doesn't matter.

Since you produced the original quote as support of your claim that "most likely" it was Eusebius who forged the TF, the meaning is indeed changed very significantly against your purpose. Apparently Bishop Warburton (for whatever reasons you considered his opinion important) did not say anything negative about Eusebius. The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning.

It is absurd to suggest that the Senate in Rome should have spent any time discussing a Galilean preacher.

Yeah, since they wrote about all provinces in the Roman empire. Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government. Not to mention the fact that the Acta Pilate aka Gospel of Nicodemus was written, which we know to be false.

Is that the kind of 'argument' we're going to degenerate into? Presenting the most fundamentalist notions of Jesus' fame and influence to argue against is a very common strawman, but it's still disappointing. We know and agree that the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry are highly embellished - so on what basis are you making claims about "Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate"?

He was crucified, like thousands of others. Any reason for the Roman Senate to talk about him? Absolutely not. In Jesus' case the reason was probably because the priests condemned him to Pilate as an agitator, following his disturbance at the temple. Any reason for the Roman Senate to talk about him? Of course not; he wasn't a Roman citizen, he didn't pose any threat to Roman authority, he didn't lead an armed rebellion, he didn't even kill anyone - not that the Senate would likely talk about the average murderer either. Your reasoning is absurd, and since you're implying some knowledge about the significance of an historical Jesus based on gospel stories, it is again self-contradictory.

You've claimed that you are honestly undecided about Jesus' existence and think it could go either way. But we have seen that your "honest" scepticism is directly only against Christian views; that you'll fully endorse contrary views on the flimsiest of pretexts. We've seen proof of this from the following points:

> Ongoing insistence without evidence that Eusebius "most likely" forged the TF
> Parrotting falsehoods from obviously dubious sites to 'support' that view
> Being "without doubt," against most scholars' views, that Antiquities 20 was altered
> Numerous counts of absurd arguments to support that view and ignoring contrary points

Part of getting to the facts is viewing both sides. I am presenting the opposite side and some of the facts lead to no Jesus while some lead to maybe Jesus. So far I have seen nothing that makes an argument that anyone can use as Jesus being a real person.

Yes, I know you can't see it - or at least, can't find any room for it in the midst of this rhetoric. I'm simply highlighting the evident bias which explains why that is

[stubbornone]

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct.

You claimed that your position was driven by 'evidence' and your opinion formed on the basis of 'scholarship.' And yet, when confronted with obvious errors in your presentation, you run to moderators, and now appear to be admitting that you didn't even bother checking your sources ... before arriving at the offensive position that Christians are seriously nutter and just made up Jesus Christ, eh?

THAT is why I list Jesus Conspiracy in the tin foil hat category.

[Mithrae]

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct.

You claimed that your position was driven by 'evidence' and your opinion formed on the basis of 'scholarship.' And yet, when confronted with obvious errors in your presentation, you run to moderators, and now appear to be admitting that you didn't even bother checking your sources ...

Whereas when you are confronted with the even more blatant errors in your presentation - which in my skimming over posts I've noticed Goat doing an excellent job with - you ignore them, pretending yourself to be perfect, and continue to rant about how ignorant and dishonest others are In fact your ongoing accusation of "running to moderators" appears to be outright slander.

Despite my disagreements with some folk who are 'undecided' about Jesus' existence and propose what on inspection turn out to be absurdities to discount it, it is at least possible to have some kind of conversation with them. Indeed it should be acknowledged that some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians.

[Nickman]

Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

Thankyou; so it seems that your earlier quote -
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
- was also a falsehood parrotted (I would guess) from the page which had already been criticised on grounds of inaccuracy and bias.

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct. This however is the full quote and still plays on my part. It seems that my source paraphrased the quote and didn't change its meaning one bit. Either way, doesn't matter.

Since you produced the original quote as support of your claim that "most likely" it was Eusebius who forged the TF, the meaning is indeed changed very significantly against your purpose. Apparently Bishop Warburton (for whatever reasons you considered his opinion important) did not say anything negative about Eusebius. The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning.

It is absurd to suggest that the Senate in Rome should have spent any time discussing a Galilean preacher.

Yeah, since they wrote about all provinces in the Roman empire. Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government. Not to mention the fact that the Acta Pilate aka Gospel of Nicodemus was written, which we know to be false.

Is that the kind of 'argument' we're going to degenerate into? Presenting the most fundamentalist notions of Jesus' fame and influence to argue against is a very common strawman, but it's still disappointing. We know and agree that the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry are highly embellished - so on what basis are you making claims about "Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate"?

He was crucified, like thousands of others. Any reason for the Roman Senate to talk about him? Absolutely not. In Jesus' case the reason was probably because the priests condemned him to Pilate as an agitator, following his disturbance at the temple. Any reason for the Roman Senate to talk about him? Of course not; he wasn't a Roman citizen, he didn't pose any threat to Roman authority, he didn't lead an armed rebellion, he didn't even kill anyone - not that the Senate would likely talk about the average murderer either. Your reasoning is absurd, and since you're implying some knowledge about the significance of an historical Jesus based on gospel stories, it is again self-contradictory.

You've claimed that you are honestly undecided about Jesus' existence and think it could go either way. But we have seen that your "honest" scepticism is directly only against Christian views; that you'll fully endorse contrary views on the flimsiest of pretexts. We've seen proof of this from the following points:

> Ongoing insistence without evidence that Eusebius "most likely" forged the TF
> Parrotting falsehoods from obviously dubious sites to 'support' that view
> Being "without doubt," against most scholars' views, that Antiquities 20 was altered
> Numerous counts of absurd arguments to support that view and ignoring contrary points

Part of getting to the facts is viewing both sides. I am presenting the opposite side and some of the facts lead to no Jesus while some lead to maybe Jesus. So far I have seen nothing that makes an argument that anyone can use as Jesus being a real person.

Yes, I know you can't see it - or at least, can't find any room for it in the midst of this rhetoric. I'm simply highlighting the evident bias which explains why that is

Thank you Mithrae for your posts and the conversation. I won't be able post until after christmas. Hopefully ill see you back here and we can debate some more points and ill reply to this post. I have learned some good points from you, which was my purpose in this entire debate. Merry Christmas see ya on Wednesday.

Nick