Did Jesus exist?

[unknown soldier]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect? If Jesus did exist, then how much was he like the Jesus of the New Testament? Was the "real" Jesus so different from the Biblical Jesus that the Biblical Jesus is essentially a myth like Osiris or Thor?

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either. As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #58]

Moss tells is that it is not unique nor is it unprecedented.

Oh really? Well why don't you get Moss to supply us with anything at all which would compare? Because I will assure you that, "the story of Socrates drinking the hemlock dying for a noble cause", does not compare in the least! I mean, I do not see, or hear of anyone taking this very seriously, and I am not aware of any web site devoted to debating the topic? Nor, do I believe this story is, or has consumed the lives of millions, upon millions of folks down through the years? Moreover, I do not believe there would be any sort of real historical evidence which would be involved as far as the Socrates story. You know, like I do not think we have any sort of letters addressed to different audiences at the time, demonstrating not only what the authors believed, and claim to have witnessed, which goes on to demonstrate how these authors were living out their lives? Tell you what, I will be more than happy to compare any other religion, or god story you, or even Moss would like to supply, in order to determine just how they would compare to Christianity as far as real historical facts, and evidence is concerned. If this cannot be done, then it would seem as if Moss would be incorrect that Christianity would not be "unique nor unprecedented" because it certainly is. So then, what we are left with, is a truly fantastic tale, whether the tale be true, or false.

So as far as I'm concerned, Christianity is nothing more than tales taught by imaginative people, and when those people weren't imaginative, they were not above plagiarizing.

Okay? So what? There are many folks who would agree with you, and many who would not. I happen to believe the claims of the resurrection based on the facts, and evidence we have, which means you, and I disagree, and I have no problem with this in the least. How about you? One thing is for sure though, and that is, if "Christianity is nothing more than tales taught by imaginative people" then we still have the most fantastic tale, and there is no other tale which would compare.

So Christ existed because you cannot figure out how people could have made him up.

When have I ever argued, "Christ existed"? I am saying we have an abundance of facts, and evidence in support of his existence, and thus far the explanation you have given in order to cast doubt upon the existence of Jesus, is simply the product of one's imagination. If you do not believe me, simply look at the quote you gave from Moss.

the death of Socrates probably is the inspiration for the story of Jesus' execution.

Do I need to point out the key word here? "PROBABLY"! In other words, we are to, "imagine". But you see, "probably" does not answer all the historical facts, and evidence we have in support of the claims. But, it is true, some folks are satisfied with, "probably" especially if it comes from a "scholar" who agrees with what one would rather believe. The problem is, she has not demonstrated her theory to be the case. In fact, she cannot even demonstrate, this would "probably" be the case.

When you start trolling, I stop my reply to you.

First of all, that is fine by me, because this means that I can respond to your post, without having to take the time to respond to your response. Works for me!

Next, did you not advise another member against "appealing to authority"? Yes, I believe you did. Have you not, on more than one occasion since that advice, appealed to authorities? I'm thinking that would be a yes? In fact, I believe it may have been you, who said you had ordered the book by Moss, and promised that you were going to share in the forum the things in this book, and went on to warn the member you were responding to, they were, "not going to like it". Yes, I do believe that would have been you, and I also believe, even though I had never heard of Moss at that time, I responded by saying, "I look forward to it".

What seems sort of strange at this point is the fact that you have now used the opinions of Moss in response to me, and I respond to what she has to say, and go on to supply you with a clip which seems to certainly demonstrate Moss has an agenda, and yet you say nothing about this clip in response? But the thing is, this is not the only clip I can use to demonstrate that if one is under the impression that Moss is giving an unbias opinion, they are sadly mistaken. Moreover, even though Moss is a New Testament professor, I believe I can demonstrate where she has a complete lack of knowledge about the New Testament. Either that, or she is completely dishonest. I don't know which would be worse, but I can clearly demonstrate where she has made statements concerning the NT which would be completely false. Would this be because she lacks the knowledge, or is she being deceitful?

One thing I can say about the fact that you are using Moss is, thus far I am not hating it at all. In fact, I'm loving it, and look forward to even more. Bring it on!

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #59]

Mith, if you think I'm going to respond to your 907 words, then you are mistaken. It appears to be a common tact among the apologists on this board to post ebook-length replies in an apparent attempt to overwhelm their interlocutors with a wall of text. I just don't have the time nor the inclination to play that game. Due to a disability I'm a slow typist. So if you want me to respond to you, then you'll need to be much more concise. Please revise your post to make its length more manageable for me to read and respond to it. Just post your main points for me to scrutinize.

Golly, that's nearly 80% longer than your own post... almost as much as an eighth grade assignment There ain't many folk who could deal with that! Everyone knows that serious discussion of history should be done in 537 words or less.

As I've already explained several times, judging by your refusal to consider some other points of comparison along the range of uncertainties - ie. an ancient figure who fairly probably existed, another plausible and one who probably didn't - it's obvious that you aren't actually interested in any kind of structured evaluation of the likelihood of Jesus' existence; just (hyper-)scepticism from a purely arbitrary perspective. It really doesn't bother me whether you respond or not. If I thought you were interested in serious discussion I'd happily accommodate your needs, but when you've already refused my own reasoned request for how to approach the discussion there's not much point in me obliging yours.

But if I may help you get started, it appears that you don't like my version of the historical Jesus because he does not match your version of the Biblical Jesus. Is that correct?

Not even close to correct on either point. All good though; as you suggested earlier, maybe there's some readers who'll appreciate the exchange.

[unknown soldier]

As I've already explained several times, judging by your refusal to consider some other points of comparison along the range of uncertainties - ie. an ancient figure who fairly probably existed, another plausible and one who probably didn't - it's obvious that you aren't actually interested in any kind of structured evaluation of the likelihood of Jesus' existence; just (hyper-)scepticism from a purely arbitrary perspective.

Actually, you may have missed it but I already posted that the existence of Paul is a sure bet because we have some writings from him. Moses, on the other hand, probably didn't exist because we have no evidence for a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt. I suppose I'd rate the existence of Socrates as plausible.

While I'm not sure why you insist I post such examples, I do hope I've fulfilled your expectation of a person you hope to convince that Jesus existed by providing you with the help you evidently think you need.

...it's obvious that you aren't actually interested in any kind of structured evaluation of the likelihood of Jesus' existence...

I must disagree with you there, Mith. A lot of people who have no strong opinions about the historicity of various figures from antiquity may nevertheless seek a sensible discussion of how probable it is that Jesus existed. If you wish to make a case for Christ, then it is your burden to do so. Those who are merely curious about the issue have no onus to help you make your case.

It really doesn't bother me whether you respond or not. If I thought you were interested in serious discussion I'd happily accommodate your needs, but when you've already refused my own reasoned request for how to approach the discussion there's not much point in me obliging yours.

If you were making an oral presentation to an audience, would you talk to them like this?

But if I may help you get started, it appears that you don't like my version of the historical Jesus because he does not match your version of the Biblical Jesus. Is that correct?

Not even close to correct on either point. All good though; as you suggested earlier, maybe there's some readers who'll appreciate the exchange.

Hmmm. So you tell me I'm wrong about your apparent reason to reject my argument for a historical Jesus, yet you don't bother to explain why I'm wrong. I want you to be concise, but not that concise! So please post your main reason(s) you find my argument to be unconvincing, and I'll try to go over them.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #63]

Actually, you may have missed it but I already posted that the existence of Paul is a sure bet because we have some writings from him.

Okay, well let us go with this. "The existence of Paul is a sure bet". It would also be a "sure bet" that Paul would have been alive at the time of the alleged Jesus. It would also be a fact, that we have very strong evidence in support of the author of the 2 letters addressed to Theophlius traveling with Paul on his journeys. Paul mentions the names of Peter, James, and John, as being Apostles, and also goes on to mention the 12 Apostles as a group. Moreover, the author of the two letters to Theophilus mentions all the Apostles by name, and we have very strong evidence to suggest this author would have been in the company of the twelve. This means, that both Paul, and the author of the letters to Theophilus, would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making.

Now, as we combine all of this with the fact that both Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, write extensively about Jesus, as a real historical figure, along with the letters of both of these men demonstrating exactly how they were living out their lives, (as if Jesus was a real historical figure) I would say this would be very good reason to believe Jesus would have been a real historical figure. Let us also keep in mind that the author of the letters to Theophilus, explains to Theophilus, exactly how he obtained his information which he says was, "careful investigation from the beginning", indicating that he would have been alive at the time in order to do this investigation, along with the fact that Theophilus would have been in a position to know if this author would have been alive at the time, I would say we have very good reasons to believe in the existence of a real historical Jesus. What would it be to cause us to doubt his existence?

Now let us go back to something you said in the OP, which was,

As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist.

Your problem here is, I have supplied you with reasons to believe that Jesus did in fact exist, and it is not going to work for you to simply explain to us, you do not see these as being good reasons. Rather you will have to explain, and demonstrate using facts, and evidence, how, and why we should not believe these reports.

Because you see, you seem to want to distance yourself from actually claiming Jesus was not a real historical figure, and I imagine you do this because you understand you cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and therefore you are attempting to avoid the burden. However, when you go on to insist that I have no good reasons to believe the claims, you now own the burden to demonstrate exactly how, and why, using facts, and evidence, as to why, my reasons are not good reasons. Again, we are not looking for your opinion here. In other words, it is not going to work to simply say you disagree with me that these would be good reasons, because all you would be doing then is to share an opinion. Rather, you will have to demonstrate exactly how, and why these reports would be false, using facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate that I do not have good reasons to believe as I do.

[unknown soldier]

...we have very strong evidence in support of the author of the 2 letters addressed to Theophlius traveling with Paul on his journeys.

What strong evidence is that?

...the author of the two letters to Theophilus mentions all the Apostles by name, and we have very strong evidence to suggest this author would have been in the company of the twelve.

What strong evidence is that?

You are referring to Luke, of course. Some scholars do not believe that Acts is history, and at least one has judged it to be a forgery. Also, Luke never identifies himself in his gospel and never details how he knows the contents to be true. He also plagiarizes Mark. That kind of sloppy and possibly deceitful work would get Luke kicked out of most historical societies if he lived today.

Now, as we combine all of this with the fact that both Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, write extensively about Jesus, as a real historical figure, along with the letters of both of these men demonstrating exactly how they were living out their lives, (as if Jesus was a real historical figure) I would say this would be very good reason to believe Jesus would have been a real historical figure.

Paul didn't keep any secrets about how he supposedly knew about Jesus: he got it all through revelation which is to say he was hearing and seeing things. He says almost nothing about Jesus as a historical person but goes on about Jesus "in outer space" as Richard Carrier puts it. Paul couldn't be a worse witness for a historical Jesus unless you want Jesus to take you to heaven, of course.

Let us also keep in mind that the author of the letters to Theophilus, explains to Theophilus, exactly how he obtained his information which he says was, "careful investigation from the beginning...

LOL You call that "exactly"? You may wish to go back and read it again. There are some details missing.

I would say we have very good reasons to believe in the existence of a real historical Jesus. What would it be to cause us to doubt his existence?

In addition to the problems I've already cited, I'd say that you have enormous historical difficulties with the gospels. Almost everything in them is historically problematical. From the birth narrative discrepancies to the wacky trial to the contradictory resurrection stories--I'd be embarrassed to admit that I believe anything written in them.

...you will have to explain, and demonstrate using facts, and evidence, how, and why we should not believe these reports.

If you want to believe them, then go ahead. I can only tell you why you're believing baloney. If you ignore reason, then you face the consequences.

...you seem to want to distance yourself from actually claiming Jesus was not a real historical figure, and I imagine you do this because you understand you cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and therefore you are attempting to avoid the burden.

If you're referring to the Jesus of Christian faith, the wonder worker you hope is your ticket to paradise, then he almost certainly did not exist. Sorry, your hope is forlorn, and I suggest you get a life.

...you will have to demonstrate exactly how, and why these reports would be false, using facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate that I do not have good reasons to believe as I do.

What happens if I don't do that?

[Mithrae]

...it's obvious that you aren't actually interested in any kind of structured evaluation of the likelihood of Jesus' existence...

I must disagree with you there, Mith. A lot of people who have no strong opinions about the historicity of various figures from antiquity may nevertheless seek a sensible discussion of how probable it is that Jesus existed. If you wish to make a case for Christ, then it is your burden to do so. Those who are merely curious about the issue have no onus to help you make your case.

I'm not talking with people who have no strong opinions about the historicity of Jesus, I'm talking to a chap with a long history of disputing his existence and denigrating both scholars and those he labels "apologists" who accept the high probability that he did.

As I've already explained several times, judging by your refusal to consider some other points of comparison along the range of uncertainties - ie. an ancient figure who fairly probably existed, another plausible and one who probably didn't - it's obvious that you aren't actually interested in any kind of structured evaluation of the likelihood of Jesus' existence; just (hyper-)scepticism from a purely arbitrary perspective.

Actually, you may have missed it but I already posted that the existence of Paul is a sure bet because we have some writings from him. Moses, on the other hand, probably didn't exist because we have no evidence for a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt. I suppose I'd rate the existence of Socrates as plausible.

While I'm not sure why you insist I post such examples, I do hope I've fulfilled your expectation of a person you hope to convince that Jesus existed by providing you with the help you evidently think you need.

As I've said several times already, I'm not interested in playing your game of "Convince me Jesus existed, bet you can't!" And if you profess ignorance of why other points of comparison are important it can only possibly be wilful ignorance.

So Paul: Firstly and most obviously we must note that, in this case, you have retracted your only-sometimes-convenient 'argument' that "if you wish to argue that [someone] existed, then it's a logical mistake to say that what he did is evidence for him." As far as I can tell, that pleading is only ever used in the case of Jesus and for every other person in history we recognize that what they did is evidence of their existence; the only caveat is the question (or often, mere speculation) of was it really them who did it. However you think that it is a "sure bet" that if there are documents which say "from Paul" at the start then Paul existed. And that is the full and only reason for your conclusion that Paul existed? By implication therefore, you consider it a sure bet that the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, David and so on existed too?

In the case of Socrates by contrast, multiple sources confirm his existence. As I've already tried to explain to you earlier, a single writer can forge any number of written documents, but social influence - in this case leaving a range of contemporary or near-contemporary people with the impression that he did in fact exist - is much less easy to falsify. According to real historians the Socratic problem is not whether he existed, but 'merely' how to reconcile the often contradictory and partisan information about the man into a plausible, coherent 'historical Socrates.' How to sort out the truth from the appropriation, propaganda or legend in other words (an issue which also exists for Paul).

A critic might think that your reasoning differentiating these two - nothing more than "he didn't write anything" - is tailored more towards the knowledge that Jesus also didn't write anything, than to actually thinking about the implications of arguing that if we've got written text attributed to a person they surely existed and if we don't it's only plausible.



As for Moses, there are historical reports of a mass exodus of Semites from northern Egypt. They obviously weren't 'Jews,' since Jews as a distinctive ethnonym did not exist until at least the 9th century BCE. But "Josephus associated the Hyksos with the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Many modern scholars believe the Hyksos may have partially inspired the Biblical account." If that were your reason for thinking that Moses didn't exist, it seems that you will have to revise that opinion also. In fact, in most of the book of Deuteronomy (cf. 31:9-11) and in the 20th to 23rd chapters of Exodus (cf. 24:4-7) we even have the purported writings of Moses himself, so according to your reasoning regarding Paul the existence of Moses must be a sure bet as well!

As I noted earlier, my own main reasons for considering Moses' existence improbable are the relative lateness with which information about him can be confidently dated, many centuries after the purported events, and the absence of any identifiable confirmed historical context to separate from the stories' purpose as national foundation myths. Some of the Hyksos may well have settled in Canaan and been of the ancestral groups which became the Israelites, eventually re-writing their ignoble expulsion into a glorious escape from slavery, and if they had a leader and there were some distinctive points of comparison between him and Moses (eg. adopted into Pharoah's family) then we could say that a 'historical Moses' did exist as a basis for the later stories; but in the case of Moses no such connection between myth and history can be made.

In the case of Jesus by contrast we have multiple independent attestations within a few decades of his life tying him to his brother James, his baptiser John, his followers Cephas and John, his high priest and judge Caiaphas and executioner Pilate. Not only that but there are coherent religious/social philosophies plausibly attributed to him which can connect and make sense of the more concrete but disjointed facts of his disciples, crucifixion and ongoing movement of devotees. There is a substantial core in there supported by solid historical evidence, despite the legends of miraculous birth and healings or the myth of a resurrected-saviour.

[Difflugia]

Hmmm. So you tell me I'm wrong about your apparent reason to reject my argument for a historical Jesus, yet you don't bother to explain why I'm wrong. I want you to be concise, but not that concise! So please post your main reason(s) you find my argument to be unconvincing, and I'll try to go over them.

For the record, I agree with you. I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy. I'm saying this up front because I want you to take the following criticism as it's intended rather than as an attempt to discredit what you're saying in general.

First, at the broad point that you're levelling the question, "did Jesus exist" is an academic question and is going to be addressed by appeals to scholarship. In an aggregate sense, scholars have thought of and addressed all of the things you're bringing up. They might be wrong about important bits of it (and if you and I are right, they must be), but it's not because they're overlooking something easy or stupid and it's definitely not because they're a bunch of liars. Those are the arguments of creationists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. If you find yourself making those arguments, stop if you want to be taken seriously.

You've most recently mentioned, for example, that all of Paul's "gospel" was established via personal revelation. Once again, I happen to think you're right, but there are scholars that disagree for reasons that are based on accepted ways of examining and interacting with the evidence. Samuel Byrskog writes the following in his excellent essay, "How do we Know that Jesus Existed?" from the Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus:

A third way of employing Paul’s letters as sources is to identify his use of Jesus tradition. We have already noticed his reference to tradition in 1 Cor 15:3. This is a tradition about Jesus, and there is reason to trust it historically, but Paul does not identify it as Jesus tradition. In fact, he does so only on three or four occasions, in 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25; and possibly 1 Thess 4:15–17.26 On all three or four occasions he attributes the tradition directly to the Lord, and this raises the question whether he in fact thought of it as a personal revelation. At least 1 Cor 11:23–25 does not warrant this conclusion. Paul uses technical terminology for receiving and passing on tradition and formulates in a way that is strikingly reminiscent of what is known as Jesus tradition in Luke 22:19–20. His reference to tradition at this point is significant, because it places the words of Jesus within a small narrative context. As is well known, there are two different strands of the tradition concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other one being recorded in Mark 14:22–24/Matt 26:26–28, but it seems historically reasonable to assume that Paul gives testimony to an early conviction that Jesus had celebrated a particularly important evening meal together with his disciples towards the end of his life.

Once an academic argument such as this has been published in an accepted way, opposing scholars aren't allowed to ignore it. One may dismiss it as long as one does so explicitly, but then the dismissal becomes a part of the reasoning.

My advice is to pick something smaller to debate that you think scholars have wrong that, though small, is important to the overall discussion. "Paul's gospel is based exclusively on personal revelation" or "James isn't the literal brother of Jesus" might be good examples. My fingers aren't broken, I guess, but I'd also like to see a discussion about exactly which pericopes (if any) from the Gospels are considered historical and if there are ways beyond mere plausibility that scholars use to discern between the commonly accepted, "Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River," and just-as-commonly rejected "Jesus came back to life after being dead for three days."

I also have two, somewhat-related asides that I'd like to mention.

First, though there are few contexts in which I can say this, I'm lucky to live in Michigan. Biblical scholarship is normally expensive to access outside of a seminary library, but the State buys public access to a huge, online academic library from EBSCO at mel.org. If you have a Michigan driver's license number, you can read online or download a significant proportion of current biblical scholarship. I don't know if any other states or public organizations have done anything like this, but I find it hard to believe that Michigan is at the forefront of anything, let alone offering easier access to books than guns.

Second, I've been reading Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space this week. He frequently mentions Plutarch's Isis and Osiris and it took me more effort than I would have liked to track down an English translation. It turns out that the Loeb Classical Library edition of Plutarch's Moralia is in the Canadian public domain ("Life+50") and an excellent scan from the University of Toronto is available in the Internet Archive. If you prefer, there's a translation from the nineteenth century at Google Books.

[unknown soldier]

I'm not talking with people who have no strong opinions about the historicity of Jesus, I'm talking to a chap with a long history of disputing his existence and denigrating both scholars and those he labels "apologists" who accept the high probability that he did.

You might have the wrong chap. Back on the OP I said:

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either.

Since I stated explicitly that I do not say that Jesus did not exist, I have no burden to prove that he didn't exist. Regarding scholars who are sure Jesus existed, I said:

As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

By pointing out the fact that scholars have not met the burden of proof for a historical Jesus, I do not "denigrate" them but correct them.

As I've said several times already, I'm not interested in playing your game of "Convince me Jesus existed, bet you can't!"

When did I say that? I did point out that you have failed to discredit mythicism, and it appears that you cannot discredit it.

And if you profess ignorance of why other points of comparison are important it can only possibly be wilful ignorance.

I do hope you are not willfully ignorant of how to spell-check.

Anyway, I see your position is that if I don't use your approach to historicity, then I am willfully ignorant.

So Paul: Firstly and most obviously we must note that, in this case, you have retracted your only-sometimes-convenient 'argument' that "if you wish to argue that [someone] existed, then it's a logical mistake to say that what he did is evidence for him."

That's a straw-man argument. My real logic is that if we wish to prove a person existed, then it will do us no good to assume that person existed to do so. If a premise in our argument posits that the person in question did something, then we assume what we are trying to prove because that person must have existed to do it! In the case of Paul, we know that some person authored several epistles including Romans--we are not assuming a person wrote them because we need a person to have written them. That person I call "Paul." Note that I don't think this Paul is the Paul of Christian faith.

The difference is subtle, but think about it for a while.

By implication therefore, you consider it a sure bet that the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, David and so on existed too?

Yes, although I do not think that "Isaiah, Jeremiah and David" were the figures that Jews and Christians believe in. They were the authors of those books like Paul is the author of some epistles.

In the case of Socrates by contrast, multiple sources confirm his existence. As I've already tried to explain to you earlier, a single writer can forge any number of written documents, but social influence - in this case leaving a range of contemporary or near-contemporary people with the impression that he did in fact exist - is much less easy to falsify.

Actually, we have multiple sources for mythological figures like Hercules. It's really not hard for two or more people to testify to something that isn't true.

A critic might think that your reasoning differentiating these two - nothing more than "he didn't write anything" - is tailored more towards the knowledge that Jesus also didn't write anything, than to actually thinking about the implications of arguing that if we've got written text attributed to a person they surely existed and if we don't it's only plausible.

It would help your case a lot if you did have writings from Jesus. With all those early Christians writing all those gospels, I wonder why Jesus did not or was not able to write something. His nonexistence explains this situation very well; we have nothing written by him because he never existed!

As for Moses, there are historical reports of a mass exodus of Semites from northern Egypt. They obviously weren't 'Jews,' since Jews as a distinctive ethnonym did not exist until at least the 9th century BCE. But "Josephus associated the Hyksos with the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Many modern scholars believe the Hyksos may have partially inspired the Biblical account." If that were your reason for thinking that Moses didn't exist, it seems that you will have to revise that opinion also.

I'm skeptical about Moses because if his story is true, then it seems likely that we would have archaeological evidence for the exodus, but we have no such evidence. Josephus isn't very convincing to me. Sorry!

In the case of Jesus by contrast we have multiple independent attestations within a few decades of his life tying him to his brother James, his baptiser John, his followers Cephas and John, his high priest and judge Caiaphas and executioner Pilate. Not only that but there are coherent religious/social philosophies plausibly attributed to him which can connect and make sense of the more concrete but disjointed facts of his disciples, crucifixion and ongoing movement of devotees. There is a substantial core in there supported by solid historical evidence, despite the legends of miraculous birth and healings or the myth of a resurrected-saviour.

Is it possible that all those attestations reflect common belief rather than common knowledge of a real Jesus? I think it's wrong to refer to the individual first Christians as independent because they were obviously working together.

Finally, I should point out that comparing Jesus to other figures does you no good unless you establish a baseline of acceptable historical evidence that establishes historicity. What kind of evidence and how much of that evidence establishes that Jesus or Socrates or Moses or anybody else really existed? You have failed to establish that baseline. All you've done is claim that the evidence for Jesus is as good as the evidence for other figures you think existed. If you want to know if your blood pressure is healthy, do you just compare it to the blood pressure of other people to find out? If you're smart, then you'll compare your blood pressure to what doctors have established as a healthy level. In the same way, to determine the historicity of Jesus, you need to compare his historicity to what has been established as evidence that establishes historicity.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

The first thing I would like to point out again is the fact that you have given another member of this site the advice to "avoid appealing to authority", and since that time you continue to do just that, on top of the fact that you appeal to the "authorities" at least three times in this very short post. My friend, appealing to the authorities does not strengthened your argument in any way, because all these folks are doing is to share with you their opinion, which could be swayed by a certain bias, which is exactly why I never appeal to the authorities who may agree with the position I hold, exactly because I understand that those who may agree with my position, could very well have a bias. But again, I can certainly understand there are those who are under the impression that since they cannot verify certain things for themselves, then they must somehow rely upon the expertise of others. The strange thing is though, how they decide to rely on the expertise of those who would agree to what they would rather believe, while somehow ignoring the authorities, who would be opposed? Exactly how does that work?

I said,

we have very strong evidence in support of the author of the 2 letters addressed to Theophlius traveling with Paul on his journeys.

To which you reply,

What strong evidence is that?

I am glad you asked. The fact is, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" to describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness the event he is describing. Next, we have letters in which the author claims to have been Paul, and in these letters this author goes on to report upon who would have been with him, and this author mentions the name of Luke as being with him, in three different letters. In one of these letters, which would have clearly been written while the author would have been under arrest, and well into old age, tells his audience, who would have been Timothy, "only Luke is with me". Now, do you have any idea where the author of the letters to Theophilus ends his second letter? Well, that would be while Paul would have been under arrest. Now, can you imagine why this author may have ended this letter with Paul being under arrest? Could it possibly be the fact that there would be nothing else to tell Theophilus since the author would have been right there with Paul while under arrest? Well, not only is this a possibility, it is exactly what the evidence suggests

But, we are not finished yet. Because you see, the author of the letters to Theophilus, begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. He continues to focus upon what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing, all the way, and up until Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys. For some reason, this author then begins to focus solely on the travels of Paul, and we hear nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing again, until, or unless Paul happens to come back in contact with them again. Now, can you imagine why this would be? Sure you can. Because you see, if this author would have been with Paul on his travels away from Jerusalem, then this author could not possibly report on what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be doing, and could only report on what Paul would have been doing, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them again, and this is exactly what we have.

So then, there is no possible way one can be intellectually honest and say, we do not have strong evidence in order to suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. Of course, there are scholars who have come up with certain theories in order to attempt to explain away this evidence, but if you were to bring these theories into this conversation, I can assure you that it is not going to end well for you. Next, the actual fact that these scholars have come up with these alternative theories, demonstrates clearly that we have this strong evidence, otherwise there would be no need in attempting to come up with any sort of theories in order to explain away evidence we do not have.

I say,

the author of the two letters to Theophilus mentions all the Apostles by name, and we have very strong evidence to suggest this author would have been in the company of the twelve.

To which you reply,

What strong evidence is that?

It is the exact same evidence as above. The author begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, and he does so until Paul begins his journeys, at which point he begins to focus only upon the actions of Paul, and also uses the words, "we", and "us" as if he is actually there to witness what he records, and the author does in fact record that Paul does come in contact with the other Apostles, and if this author would have been with Paul, as the evidence suggests, then this author would have been in the company of the twelve as well.

You are referring to Luke, of course. Some scholars do not believe that Acts is history, and at least one has judged it to be a forgery.

And here we go, appealing to the "scholars". Have you actually, really sat down and thought through what all this would involved? Or, is it that, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it", just like many Christians say concerning the Bible? I mean it is mind boggling to even think through what all would have to be involved!

The first question I would ask is, what evidence do we have which would even hint at the idea that this author would not have been recording real historical events? Because you see, I am not thinking this author would have been an historian. Rather, as the evidence seems to suggest, this author sat down to write out not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth". In other words, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest this author had any other concerns, other than this one individual, and in order to suggest this author would have been targeting a wider audience, one would have to go outside the evidence we have, and create their own evidence.

So then, in order to believe this information would not be real historical events, we would have to believe this author goes to all the trouble to sit down to write out all this "fake news" to this one individual? Or, are you suggesting this author attempted to act as if he was writing to one individual, all the while having a wider audience in mind? If this is the case, exactly how would one expect these letters to end up being read by a wider audience? So then, in order to believe this, we would have to believe this author goes to all the trouble to write not one, but two long and detailed letters, as if he is addressing one individual, all the while he really has a wider audience in mind, and somehow, someway, this is all successful?

As I said, this whole thing is mind boggling, and we have not even got started good with attempting to discover what all would have to be involved in order for your "scholars" theories to be correct. In other words, for one to believe these "scholars", one would have to set aside all the plain evidence, and facts we have, in order to believe wild, and fantastic tales, with absolutely no facts, and evidence to support these other wild, and fantastic tales.

But the real question is, why are these "scholars" attempting to come up with these other wild, and fantastic alternatives? Allow me to explain it to you. It is because they clearly understand that if we simply go on the actual facts, and evidence we have, then we have very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these things, and this goes against the narrative they are attempting to create. Otherwise, there would be no need at all of attempting to come up with all this fantastic stuff, in order to explain away the actual facts, and evidence we have.

Also, Luke never identifies himself in his gospel

First of all, the author never intended to write a "gospel". He would have no idea what a "gospel" would be as far as what we now call "gospels". Rather, the evidence suggests, this author sat down to write out not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual. Not a "gospel".

Next, if this author was indeed writing to one individual, then he may have seen no need in identifying himself, if he would have been confident his audience would have known his identity. Other than that, we have pretty good evidence this author would have indeed been Luke, as demonstrated above. Now, this evidence does not demonstrate Luke would have been the author. However, the only reason for one to insist this would not be evidence for Luke to have been the author, would be for one to have some sort of agenda. In other words, one does not have to have an agenda in order to know, and understand we have evidence to suggest Luke would have been the author, because this is simply a fact. One would have to have an agenda to suggest there is no such evidence. This brings me back to your "scholars"? What evidence do they supply, in order to suggest "Acts" would not be reporting real historical events, or is some sort of forgery?

and never details how he knows the contents to be true.

The first thing you need to keep in mind is, these letters would have been addressed to one individual, which means the author owes nothing to us. In other words, since this author was only addressing this one individual, and would be confident this individual would trust what he had to say, then he would have no need in going into "details how he knows the contents to be true".

Next, what you are saying is completely false. Here is how this author begins his first letter to Theophilus.

Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

If this is not going into detail of how he knows these things to be true, then I do not know what you are looking for? Notice how he tells Theophilus that he is writing these things so Theophilus can "know the exact truth". So then, it does not just seem as if this author is suggesting these are things he believes to be true, but rather things he knows to be true. The question now is, what would have motivated this author to go to all of the trouble to write out, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, which is filled with false information? What evidence do we have that this is what the author would have set out to do? We also need to keep in mind, that Theophilus would have been in a position to investigate at least some of this information himself. Moreover, this author just so happens to unintentionally give out evidence to the idea that he would have been a witness to much of what he wrote,' along with some of the letters of Paul doing the same exact thing.

He also plagiarizes Mark.

Is this a fact we can know? Or, is it simply an opinion held by your "scholars"? Exactly where would this author have gotten a copy of Mark? I mean you act as if everyone would be walking around with their very own copies of these things, as if there were a "Kinko's" on every corner in order to make quick copies? You do realize what a painstaking task it would be to have copies made at that time, right? And yet, your "scholars" would have us believe that not just this author, but others as well would have access to these other writings.

I guess it is not possible that the reason we have these reports so aligned with each other, would be the fact that all these men were exactly who they have been said to be, which means all these men would have spent some 3 years together, following and listening to the same Jesus, spending their time all during the day discussing, what they had been told? And then when Jesus is taken from them, they continued to spend time with each other, for years, telling, and retelling, hearing, and rehearing these same stories over, and over again, to the point that many of them would have known many of these things verbatim, before going on to write them down? No, that could not possibly be the answer. Your "scholars" must, and have to be correct! GOOD GRIEF! You do understand that there are many Biblical stories, which many Christians can tell, almost verbatim, exactly because they have been told, and retold these stories over, and over, just like what I am describing, right?

Moreover, since copies would have been hard to come by, this may be exactly why the author to Theophilus acknowledges these other works, and since not everyone would have had access to these other writings, this would be exactly why this author decides to write out what he knew about these things himself, to Theophilus. And again, we have already acknowledged the fact that this author explains exactly how he obtained his information, and never claims to have copied from another. I guess that would be one thing the author simply failed to report, because we all know your "scholars" have demonstrated that this author would have copied another. NOT!

My friend, you can believe what you want to believe, but please do not insist what you believe has been demonstrated, because it is far from being demonstrated! And please do not insist that we all must believe as you.

That kind of sloppy and possibly deceitful work would get Luke kicked out of most historical societies if he lived today.

This is SO, SO COMICAL! As if this author was attempting to be included in some sort of "historical society"? How in the world can one individual, sitting down to write letters to another individual, out of concern for that individual, cause one to be under the impression that this author would have been attempting to do anything other, than to communicate to this one individual? My friend, if I sit down to write letters to my wife, there are certain things I will take for granted, because I am confident I do not have to explain certain things to her, since I am only communicating to her. So........? What causes you to be under the impression this author owes something to any sort of, "historical society"?

Paul didn't keep any secrets about how he supposedly knew about Jesus: he got it all through revelation which is to say he was hearing and seeing things. He says almost nothing about Jesus as a historical person but goes on about Jesus "in outer space" as Richard Carrier puts it. Paul couldn't be a worse witness for a historical Jesus unless you want Jesus to take you to heaven, of course.

And here we have another appeal to your "scholars". My friend, it would be a fact that Paul knew, and spent much time with the other Apostles. One can hardly imagine there would have never been any talk about Jesus between them. I would suggest, that would have been the majority of the conversation between them.

LOL You call that "exactly"? You may wish to go back and read it again. There are some details missing.

I have posted the full passage above. Exactly what detail would that be?

In addition to the problems I've already cited, I'd say that you have enormous historical difficulties with the gospels. Almost everything in them is historically problematical. From the birth narrative discrepancies to the wacky trial to the contradictory resurrection stories--I'd be embarrassed to admit that I believe anything written in them.

I'm sorry, but this is SO, SO, FUNNY! On the one hand, we complain that the stories are too much alike, which is evidence they must be false, then on the other hand, if there is any sort of discrepancies, this is an indication the information must be false. If you cannot see the problem here, then I am not the one who can help you.

If you want to believe them, then go ahead.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I can absolutely assure you that this is not something I "want to believe". Who in the world would "want to believe" Christianity to be true? The only way I can imagine one "wanting to believe it" would be for that one, to not truly understand it. Therefore, I do not believe Christianity because, "I want to". Rather, I am compelled to believe it based on the facts, and evidence we have, and continuing to have conversation such as this, reinforces this belief, I can assure you!

I can only tell you why you're believing baloney.

Well, you need to start doing that, because thus far you have failed to do so.

If you ignore reason, then you face the consequences.

WOW! This sounds like a Christian who cannot defend their position, and simply begins to attempt to scare folks into belief. My friend, the difference between you, and I is the fact that I understand, and acknowledge that I cannot demonstrate what I believe, and can only give the facts, evidence, and reasons why I believe as I do, while you seem to be under the impression that your position is a foregone conclusion, when you fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

If you're referring to the Jesus of Christian faith, the wonder worker you hope is your ticket to paradise, then he almost certainly did not exist. Sorry, your hope is forlorn, and I suggest you get a life.

Was it not you who complained that I was "trolling" you? And did you also not complain to another member about the way in which they were addressing you? I think you did. But hey! I have no problem with this in the least. I have been on this site for a good number of years now, and you cannot imagine the things which have been said to me. In fact, I received a rather intense private message from a member years ago, but none of this bothers me in the least, because I am simply here in order to determine for my self, (and no one else) if my arguments hold up to those opposed. So insults do not bother me, and I have never reported another member for such things.

The main point here however, is the fact that you cannot in any way whatsoever demonstrate that the "Jesus of Christian faith" would not be the real historical Jesus, other than in your own mind.

What happens if I don't do that?

It simply demonstrates the fact that you cannot back up what you say.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

The first thing I would like to point out again is the fact that you have given another member of this site the advice to "avoid appealing to authority", and since that time you continue to do just that, on top of the fact that you appeal to the "authorities" at least three times in this very short post. My friend, appealing to the authorities does not strengthened your argument in any way, because all these folks are doing is to share with you their opinion, which could be swayed by a certain bias, which is exactly why I never appeal to the authorities who may agree with the position I hold, exactly because I understand that those who may agree with my position, could very well have a bias. But again, I can certainly understand there are those who are under the impression that since they cannot verify certain things for themselves, then they must somehow rely upon the expertise of others. The strange thing is though, how they decide to rely on the expertise of those who would agree to what they would rather believe, while somehow ignoring the authorities, who would be opposed? Exactly how does that work?

I said,

we have very strong evidence in support of the author of the 2 letters addressed to Theophlius traveling with Paul on his journeys.

To which you reply,

What strong evidence is that?

I am glad you asked. The fact is, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" to describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is actually there to witness the event he is describing. Next, we have letters in which the author claims to have been Paul, and in these letters this author goes on to report upon who would have been with him, and this author mentions the name of Luke as being with him, in three different letters. In one of these letters, which would have clearly been written while the author would have been under arrest, and well into old age, tells his audience, who would have been Timothy, "only Luke is with me". Now, do you have any idea where the author of the letters to Theophilus ends his second letter? Well, that would be while Paul would have been under arrest. Now, can you imagine why this author may have ended this letter with Paul being under arrest? Could it possibly be the fact that there would be nothing else to tell Theophilus since the author would have been right there with Paul while under arrest? Well, not only is this a possibility, it is exactly what the evidence suggests

But, we are not finished yet. Because you see, the author of the letters to Theophilus, begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. He continues to focus upon what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing, all the way, and up until Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys. For some reason, this author then begins to focus solely on the travels of Paul, and we hear nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing again, until, or unless Paul happens to come back in contact with them again. Now, can you imagine why this would be? Sure you can. Because you see, if this author would have been with Paul on his travels away from Jerusalem, then this author could not possibly report on what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be doing, and could only report on what Paul would have been doing, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them again, and this is exactly what we have.

So then, there is no possible way one can be intellectually honest and say, we do not have strong evidence in order to suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. Of course, there are scholars who have come up with certain theories in order to attempt to explain away this evidence, but if you were to bring these theories into this conversation, I can assure you that it is not going to end well for you. Next, the actual fact that these scholars have come up with these alternative theories, demonstrates clearly that we have this strong evidence, otherwise there would be no need in attempting to come up with any sort of theories in order to explain away evidence we do not have.

I say,

the author of the two letters to Theophilus mentions all the Apostles by name, and we have very strong evidence to suggest this author would have been in the company of the twelve.

To which you reply,

What strong evidence is that?

It is the exact same evidence as above. The author begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, and he does so until Paul begins his journeys, at which point he begins to focus only upon the actions of Paul, and also uses the words, "we", and "us" as if he is actually there to witness what he records, and the author does in fact record that Paul does come in contact with the other Apostles, and if this author would have been with Paul, as the evidence suggests, then this author would have been in the company of the twelve as well.

You are referring to Luke, of course. Some scholars do not believe that Acts is history, and at least one has judged it to be a forgery.

And here we go, appealing to the "scholars". Have you actually, really sat down and thought through what all this would involved? Or, is it that, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it", just like many Christians say concerning the Bible? I mean it is mind boggling to even think through what all would have to be involved!

The first question I would ask is, what evidence do we have which would even hint at the idea that this author would not have been recording real historical events? Because you see, I am not thinking this author would have been an historian. Rather, as the evidence seems to suggest, this author sat down to write out not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth". In other words, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest this author had any other concerns, other than this one individual, and in order to suggest this author would have been targeting a wider audience, one would have to go outside the evidence we have, and create their own evidence.

So then, in order to believe this information would not be real historical events, we would have to believe this author goes to all the trouble to sit down to write out all this "fake news" to this one individual? Or, are you suggesting this author attempted to act as if he was writing to one individual, all the while having a wider audience in mind? If this is the case, exactly how would one expect these letters to end up being read by a wider audience? So then, in order to believe this, we would have to believe this author goes to all the trouble to write not one, but two long and detailed letters, as if he is addressing one individual, all the while he really has a wider audience in mind, and somehow, someway, this is all successful?

As I said, this whole thing is mind boggling, and we have not even got started good with attempting to discover what all would have to be involved in order for your "scholars" theories to be correct. In other words, for one to believe these "scholars", one would have to set aside all the plain evidence, and facts we have, in order to believe wild, and fantastic tales, with absolutely no facts, and evidence to support these other wild, and fantastic tales.

But the real question is, why are these "scholars" attempting to come up with these other wild, and fantastic alternatives? Allow me to explain it to you. It is because they clearly understand that if we simply go on the actual facts, and evidence we have, then we have very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these things, and this goes against the narrative they are attempting to create. Otherwise, there would be no need at all of attempting to come up with all this fantastic stuff, in order to explain away the actual facts, and evidence we have.

Also, Luke never identifies himself in his gospel

First of all, the author never intended to write a "gospel". He would have no idea what a "gospel" would be as far as what we now call "gospels". Rather, the evidence suggests, this author sat down to write out not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual. Not a "gospel".

Next, if this author was indeed writing to one individual, then he may have seen no need in identifying himself, if he would have been confident his audience would have known his identity. Other than that, we have pretty good evidence this author would have indeed been Luke, as demonstrated above. Now, this evidence does not demonstrate Luke would have been the author. However, the only reason for one to insist this would not be evidence for Luke to have been the author, would be for one to have some sort of agenda. In other words, one does not have to have an agenda in order to know, and understand we have evidence to suggest Luke would have been the author, because this is simply a fact. One would have to have an agenda to suggest there is no such evidence. This brings me back to your "scholars"? What evidence do they supply, in order to suggest "Acts" would not be reporting real historical events, or is some sort of forgery?

and never details how he knows the contents to be true.

The first thing you need to keep in mind is, these letters would have been addressed to one individual, which means the author owes nothing to us. In other words, since this author was only addressing this one individual, and would be confident this individual would trust what he had to say, then he would have no need in going into "details how he knows the contents to be true".

Next, what you are saying is completely false. Here is how this author begins his first letter to Theophilus.

Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

If this is not going into detail of how he knows these things to be true, then I do not know what you are looking for? Notice how he tells Theophilus that he is writing these things so Theophilus can "know the exact truth". So then, it does not just seem as if this author is suggesting these are things he believes to be true, but rather things he knows to be true. The question now is, what would have motivated this author to go to all of the trouble to write out, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, which is filled with false information? What evidence do we have that this is what the author would have set out to do? We also need to keep in mind, that Theophilus would have been in a position to investigate at least some of this information himself. Moreover, this author just so happens to unintentionally give out evidence to the idea that he would have been a witness to much of what he wrote,' along with some of the letters of Paul doing the same exact thing.

He also plagiarizes Mark.

Is this a fact we can know? Or, is it simply an opinion held by your "scholars"? Exactly where would this author have gotten a copy of Mark? I mean you act as if everyone would be walking around with their very own copies of these things, as if there were a "Kinko's" on every corner in order to make quick copies? You do realize what a painstaking task it would be to have copies made at that time, right? And yet, your "scholars" would have us believe that not just this author, but others as well would have access to these other writings.

I guess it is not possible that the reason we have these reports so aligned with each other, would be the fact that all these men were exactly who they have been said to be, which means all these men would have spent some 3 years together, following and listening to the same Jesus, spending their time all during the day discussing, what they had been told? And then when Jesus is taken from them, they continued to spend time with each other, for years, telling, and retelling, hearing, and rehearing these same stories over, and over again, to the point that many of them would have known many of these things verbatim, before going on to write them down? No, that could not possibly be the answer. Your "scholars" must, and have to be correct! GOOD GRIEF! You do understand that there are many Biblical stories, which many Christians can tell, almost verbatim, exactly because they have been told, and retold these stories over, and over, just like what I am describing, right?

Moreover, since copies would have been hard to come by, this may be exactly why the author to Theophilus acknowledges these other works, and since not everyone would have had access to these other writings, this would be exactly why this author decides to write out what he knew about these things himself, to Theophilus. And again, we have already acknowledged the fact that this author explains exactly how he obtained his information, and never claims to have copied from another. I guess that would be one thing the author simply failed to report, because we all know your "scholars" have demonstrated that this author would have copied another. NOT!

My friend, you can believe what you want to believe, but please do not insist what you believe has been demonstrated, because it is far from being demonstrated! And please do not insist that we all must believe as you.

That kind of sloppy and possibly deceitful work would get Luke kicked out of most historical societies if he lived today.

This is SO, SO COMICAL! As if this author was attempting to be included in some sort of "historical society"? How in the world can one individual, sitting down to write letters to another individual, out of concern for that individual, cause one to be under the impression that this author would have been attempting to do anything other, than to communicate to this one individual? My friend, if I sit down to write letters to my wife, there are certain things I will take for granted, because I am confident I do not have to explain certain things to her, since I am only communicating to her. So........? What causes you to be under the impression this author owes something to any sort of, "historical society"?

Paul didn't keep any secrets about how he supposedly knew about Jesus: he got it all through revelation which is to say he was hearing and seeing things. He says almost nothing about Jesus as a historical person but goes on about Jesus "in outer space" as Richard Carrier puts it. Paul couldn't be a worse witness for a historical Jesus unless you want Jesus to take you to heaven, of course.

And here we have another appeal to your "scholars". My friend, it would be a fact that Paul knew, and spent much time with the other Apostles. One can hardly imagine there would have never been any talk about Jesus between them. I would suggest, that would have been the majority of the conversation between them.

LOL You call that "exactly"? You may wish to go back and read it again. There are some details missing.

I have posted the full passage above. Exactly what detail would that be?

In addition to the problems I've already cited, I'd say that you have enormous historical difficulties with the gospels. Almost everything in them is historically problematical. From the birth narrative discrepancies to the wacky trial to the contradictory resurrection stories--I'd be embarrassed to admit that I believe anything written in them.

I'm sorry, but this is SO, SO, FUNNY! On the one hand, we complain that the stories are too much alike, which is evidence they must be false, then on the other hand, if there is any sort of discrepancies, this is an indication the information must be false. If you cannot see the problem here, then I am not the one who can help you.

If you want to believe them, then go ahead.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I can absolutely assure you that this is not something I "want to believe". Who in the world would "want to believe" Christianity to be true? The only way I can imagine one "wanting to believe it" would be for that one, to not truly understand it. Therefore, I do not believe Christianity because, "I want to". Rather, I am compelled to believe it based on the facts, and evidence we have, and continuing to have conversation such as this, reinforces this belief, I can assure you!

I can only tell you why you're believing baloney.

Well, you need to start doing that, because thus far you have failed to do so.

If you ignore reason, then you face the consequences.

WOW! This sounds like a Christian who cannot defend their position, and simply begins to attempt to scare folks into belief. My friend, the difference between you, and I is the fact that I understand, and acknowledge that I cannot demonstrate what I believe, and can only give the facts, evidence, and reasons why I believe as I do, while you seem to be under the impression that your position is a foregone conclusion, when you fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

If you're referring to the Jesus of Christian faith, the wonder worker you hope is your ticket to paradise, then he almost certainly did not exist. Sorry, your hope is forlorn, and I suggest you get a life.

Was it not you who complained that I was "trolling" you? And did you also not complain to another member about the way in which they were addressing you? I think you did. But hey! I have no problem with this in the least. I have been on this site for a good number of years now, and you cannot imagine the things which have been said to me. In fact, I received a rather intense private message from a member years ago, but none of this bothers me in the least, because I am simply here in order to determine for my self, (and no one else) if my arguments hold up to those opposed. So insults do not bother me, and I have never reported another member for such things.

The main point here however, is the fact that you cannot in any way whatsoever demonstrate that the "Jesus of Christian faith" would not be the real historical Jesus, other than in your own mind.

What happens if I don't do that?

It simply demonstrates the fact that you cannot back up what you say.

I see your argument for a historical Jesus amounts to: you can know Jesus existed because the Bible says so.