Doubting Jesus' existence?

[historia]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

[Mithrae]

A lot of atheists making the assertion that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth never existed, are former Ministers, Pastors, Priests etc. Dan Barker is one such example and I mention him only because he is probably better known than other examples I could give. Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity? Whether people like to believe it or not, removing ones-self from a religion that has consumed a good part of your life, is NOT easy peasy, in fact it is one of the most difficult things psychologically, one can do. Sometimes, even when looking into information to cement ones "faith", it can cause ones faith to come crashing down around them. At that point, one can choose to keep the blinkers on, or acknowledge the new information for exactly what it is....and that what it is.. is not necessarily what you wanted. If one is honest with themselves though, the blinkers come off.

I agree that loss of life-long committed faith is an extremely difficult and ultimately emotional thing. I don't agree that this is a credential in favour of the validity of those people's subsequent views - some would say it suggests quite the opposite, of semi-emotional reactionary views rather than minimal-bias study and analysis.

I don't believe the jesus of nazareth character existed, not only due to the "supernatural" elements as mentioned by Flail, but also from some long hard research into the matter; 15+ years of it, so it wasn't fleeting for me not to believe in "jesus" or his actual existence any more. The most difficult aspect of it all was to take the blinkers off. It was far easier to "choose" to believe, until my own conscience got the better of me and at that point, I could not continue living with what was, a "comfy" lie. A little ironic don't you think that the words in John 8:32 ...were KEY to my personal exodus from christianity. "seek ye the truth and it shall set you free"... too funny...lol... it was good to know that those sentences are in the DSS 4Q163 too.... - dated to circa 150BCE.

It's obvious that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth's purported life, there were MANY a messianic style figure running around the traps. Much of the NT - the claimed words of wisdom of the character were done PRIOR and a lot better. The "Sermon on the Mount" is one such example. A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.

It looks like you're saying that even the gospel of John has various elements which would have been very much at home in 1st century Palestine.

It also looks like you're disagreeing with the most common mythicist views, that Jesus was fundamentally a syncretic pagan figure.

Unless we assume (as I agree, some Christians seem to) that an historical Jesus must have been completely uninfluenced by prior Jewish culture, what you're saying seems to almost be claims that the gospels give a pretty good portrayal of a genuine 1st century Jewish teacher.

[historia]

I personally don't think it is possible to show a historical Jesus DIDN'T exist. I would like to see something that shows he DID indeed exist, out of intellectual curiosity.

Here's a short video in which the late Christopher Hitchens lays out the two pieces of evidence that he believes establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was likely an historical figure. It's about three minutes long.

Now, after watching that, you might disagree with Hitchens. Maybe you need more evidence. But that begs the question: How much evidence is needed before we can say that Jesus (or any other person) merely existed? What threshold needs to be met?

The answer, of course, is that there is no universally agreed upon threshold of evidence for "proving" someone existed. Each of us can devise our own personal -- and therfore entirely arbitrary -- criterion, of course. But why should everyone else accept that? And, once evidence is forthcoming, what prevents you from merely moving the goal posts?

To even phrase the question in this way, though, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of historical (and scientific) inquiry. I'm afraid you're expecting someone to provide an answer to the wrong question.

Very simple.. some non-Christian discussion that happened before the writing of the gospels... using the date of 65 for Mark.. I thought that the Ossuary of James would have sufficed, if it didn't turn out to be a forgery. Heck, I would be flexible and accept anything up to the destruction of the Jewish temple..

I think you missed my point entirely. I wasn't asking you to give us your personal criterion for establishing the historicity of Jesus.

Rather, I'm pointing out that whatever criteria you devise is entirely subjective and arbitrary. Why should the rest of us accept your criteria instead of Hitchens?

This is a poor methodology. This is not how one does history.

[Goat]

I personally don't think it is possible to show a historical Jesus DIDN'T exist. I would like to see something that shows he DID indeed exist, out of intellectual curiosity.

Here's a short video in which the late Christopher Hitchens lays out the two pieces of evidence that he believes establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was likely an historical figure. It's about three minutes long.

Now, after watching that, you might disagree with Hitchens. Maybe you need more evidence. But that begs the question: How much evidence is needed before we can say that Jesus (or any other person) merely existed? What threshold needs to be met?

The answer, of course, is that there is no universally agreed upon threshold of evidence for "proving" someone existed. Each of us can devise our own personal -- and therfore entirely arbitrary -- criterion, of course. But why should everyone else accept that? And, once evidence is forthcoming, what prevents you from merely moving the goal posts?

To even phrase the question in this way, though, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of historical (and scientific) inquiry. I'm afraid you're expecting someone to provide an answer to the wrong question.

Very simple.. some non-Christian discussion that happened before the writing of the gospels... using the date of 65 for Mark.. I thought that the Ossuary of James would have sufficed, if it didn't turn out to be a forgery. Heck, I would be flexible and accept anything up to the destruction of the Jewish temple..

I think you missed my point entirely. I wasn't asking you to give us your personal criterion for establishing the historicity of Jesus.

Rather, I'm pointing out that whatever criteria you devise is entirely subjective and arbitrary. Why should the rest of us accept your criteria instead of Hitchens?

This is a poor methodology. This is not how one does history.

And assuming the truth of religious writings IS the way someone does history? Oh, how nice.

And , well, thinking that 'oh, there is fakery going on, therefore there must be a kernal of truth behind it' really doesn't make sense to me.

[Quath]

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined.

Exactly. So why, then, has this idea becoming popular among some atheists?

Is there some aspect of modern atheism that somehow leads to this kind of hyper-skepticism? Or is this just a kind of over-the-top criticism of Christianity, perhaps in reaction to fundamentalist certainty?

I can think of several reasons why. My guess is that the main reason is that it looks to be more likely or likely enough to talk about than if he had not existed. So in this case it is just about trying to find the truth.

Some think that it is worth debating to show how far removed Christianity is from evidence if the focus is not on the resurrection, but whether Jesus ever existed. I don't see them as pushing a fake issue for this though. But they are showing how horribly the documentation for Jesus is.

My grandmother gave me the book, "Case for Christ" which focused on proving Jesus was real. I started off the book thinking he was real and the resurrection story was reported wrong. But after reading that book, I felt there were so many dishonest statements and bad arguments, that I thought Jesus was probably not real.

It took more study from a more secular authority to make me swing back towards the idea that Jesus was probably real (but I still see many reasons to think he could have been made up).

[Goat]

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined.

Exactly. So why, then, has this idea becoming popular among some atheists?

Is there some aspect of modern atheism that somehow leads to this kind of hyper-skepticism? Or is this just a kind of over-the-top criticism of Christianity, perhaps in reaction to fundamentalist certainty?

I can think of several reasons why. My guess is that the main reason is that it looks to be more likely or likely enough to talk about than if he had not existed. So in this case it is just about trying to find the truth.

Some think that it is worth debating to show how far removed Christianity is from evidence if the focus is not on the resurrection, but whether Jesus ever existed. I don't see them as pushing a fake issue for this though. But they are showing how horribly the documentation for Jesus is.

My grandmother gave me the book, "Case for Christ" which focused on proving Jesus was real. I started off the book thinking he was real and the resurrection story was reported wrong. But after reading that book, I felt there were so many dishonest statements and bad arguments, that I thought Jesus was probably not real.

It took more study from a more secular authority to make me swing back towards the idea that Jesus was probably real (but I still see many reasons to think he could have been made up).

When it comes to these discussions, I look at 'what case does the evidence provide'.. and all the evidence to me does not show he exists. On the other hand, none of the evidence shows he didn't exist either. I would love to know the name of the Samaritan messiah, who was executed by Pilate in 36 c.e. which Jospehus mentions in passing. .. mainly for the number of people who were executed, and how Pilate caught and captured him than who he was. Somehow, it would not surprise me at all if his name was Jesus... but that is pure speculation on my part.

If there was a single human inspiration for Christianity, I would love to see how the details of his life compared with the Gospels. Somehow, I think the details have been modified enough that any body we could identify would not be recognizable from the Gospel accounts.

[historia]

And assuming the truth of religious writings IS the way someone does history?

Of course not. Why would you even suggest this?

And , well, thinking that 'oh, there is fakery going on, therefore there must be a kernal of truth behind it' really doesn't make sense to me.

That doesn't make sense to me either. However, that's not what Hitchens said. Rather, he said (in part):

Jesus of Nazareth is well known to have been born in Nazareth. In order to get him to Bethlehem [to fulfill Micah 5:2], a huge fabrication has to be undertaken . . .

But the fabrication itself suggests something. If they were simply going to make up the whole thing -- and there had never been any such person -- then why not just have [Jesus] born in Bethlehem right there, and leave out the Nazarene business?

I wasn't actually asking you to comment on Hitchen's argument, per se -- the question was rhetorical. My point was that your own personal criterion for "proving" Jesus existed is entirely arbitrary. Why should I (or anyone else here) accept it?

I do think that Hitchens understand the issue better than you do, though. He recognizes that the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist is just that, a hypothesis. If true, it creates certain expectations (or predictions) for what we should see in early Christian writings.

In so far as those writings don't match those expectations -- the authors are clearly committed to certain fixed, historical facts about Jesus even when it runs counter to their theological wishes -- shows that this hypothesis is weak. It doesn't explain the available data. The hypothesis that Jesus did exist, however, accounts for all the evidence quite well.

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Verification. That is how you do history.

[catalyst]

Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity?

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who believe this mythicist hypothesis. I just find that their arguments are based on a grand number of misconceptions.

Well I don't know what "grand number of misconceptions" to which you refer. Care to share? This enquiring mind wants to know.


Historia wrote:

And that what they are really arguing against is not the historical Jesus, but rather traditional Christian ideas about Jesus.

With due respect to you Historia, when push comes to shove it is the Christian ideology model: the Jesus of Nazareth character, that any research into the supposed actual historisy, behind, is based. I doubt you were referring to a Jesus I personally know who works at the local ALDI supermarket now are you? HIS place in history, albiet recent, whether he is some claimed (or self -professed) messianic figure, or even just the bloke scanning my produce through the register YESTERDAY is well set that YES at least ONE historical Jesus exists in actuality.

It is apparent even by your cited comment from Mr Erhman, that Mr Erhman was referring to the "Jesus of Nazareth" character to even bring the concept of christianity into the equation. It seems a logical conclusion for me at least as that's his reference point. If you DON'T think he is referring to that character, then WHO?


Whilst waiting for your reply on that, I will continue with this.

I also appreciate that at the time of "Jesus of Nazareth's" purported life, also prior to that and after, there are references to MULTIPLE blokes who had jesus as their Moniker, in fact from the research I have done, it seems that "Jesus" (Yeshua) was more a title than a name; a title given to high priests or religious cult leaders; sort of like Caesar was a title and not a name, first name or surname.. Even the NT itself refers to a "rival jesus", one obviously capable of doing the same sort of stuff the "jesus of nazareth" character, or there would be no reason to bring in the concept OF rivalry into it regarding the "other jesus". This is shown in both 2 Corinthians and also in Mark 9, so said moniker is hardly UNIQUE. As such, there could have been a multitude of "religious healers" running around the traps, Jesus as their name or NOT, that resulted in the fanciful melding that became the fictitious character known as "jesus of nazareth"....the one that unfortunately so many people are completely convinced (why I don't understand anymore) was a real person and even see as a "LIVING" god NOW...

The fact could be that these atheists have actually researched perhaps more than the scholars you refer to.

Historia wrote:

I'm always suspicious of any claim that non-experts somehow have better insight or knowledge than experts in any field, or that those experts are merely "blinded" by their "orthodoxy." Creationist make the same retort.

That perhaps has a lot more to do with your bias than anything, Historia. Perhaps you can explain why "X" is deemed an expert in your eyes, but "Y" would be considered non-expert?

Is perhaps an "expert" ONLY someone whose take or spin on an issue, is one YOU personally agree with, so they MUST know their "stuff"?

Perhaps you are of the misconception that I have relied on the writings of Strobel, Wells, Doherty et al to reach the conclusion I have. Just a heads up for you, I have not read ANY of their offerings. Other people's opinions on issues that I am perfectly capable of researching myself don't interest me and as such what they "think" does not come into the equation one iota.

The ONLY writer whose book (and only read one...don't even know the titles of the others) is Dan Barker's: Losing Faith in Faith, whose view BTW as to the historisy of the "Jesus of Nazareth" character, differs to mine and frankly seeking HIS spin on the whole thing was not my reasoning for reading it in the first place or ever.

That said, even though I don't agree with him, maybe you see HIM as a "non-expert" on such matters? Or haven't you read at his works to make....hmm... a "non-expert" judgement on what he has to say?


I would actually be interested to know just how much research you have personally done on this issue of the Jesus of Nazareth character as being an ACTUAL HISTORICAL figure? I would have to guess that for you to make judgements as to what constitutes expertise in the area, vs NON-expertise, you have personally experienced all sides of the equation including: attending theological college or Seminary to SPECIFICALLY "train" to be a Pastor, Minister, Priest; have a broad (or a working) knowledge YOURSELF of Biblical Hebrew, Attic and Koine Greek (at the VERY least) : have travelled to the countries and places mentioned relating to said figure and other biblical figures yourself to see how the "hype" vs the actuality, over all historical references for example, mesh?

Is the above the very least YOU have done, Historia? Again I ask purely because I am trying to gauge what YOU consider to be "expertise" by comparing it to the expertise YOU may or may not have on the issue. I mean merely reading other's works and agreeing with it and taking it on as YOUR OWN, hardly makes one an expert now, does it.

I don't see how it can remind you of the jesus not existing situation.

historia wrote:

They are both, at their heart, conspiracy theories.

How about you pop up the definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory...you will see that the majority of "stuff" we are fed as the supposed "official" story as to what REALLY <---(sarcasm) went down, is nothing more than just a conspiracy theory YOU believe. Argumentum ad populum doesn't make something TRUE, no matter how much you as a believer of the "official line" want it to be.


I suppose it really comes down to the personality type you are Historia. Some are the type to believe any old "stuff" they are told and opt to believe it....even IF their conscience is "niggling" at them. It is living with a relatively "comfy" lie. It's so much easier to live with isn't it than being accused, or even people have their own "suspicions" that you are nothing more than an "OUT THERE" freak of some stripe or another.

The irony is, the "jesus of nazareth" character IS depicted as an "out there freak", even in the bible: one supposedly against "the system" of the time. It's more than apparent you believe that the "jesus of nazareth" character DID exist in reality and perhaps his alleged "expertise" on stuff is the whole him supposedly "being god" thing. How about this Historia, you have claimed that those NOT believing in this Jesus of Nazareth character, AS an historical JESUS, then please SHOW what research you have done to determine this as frankly, all I have seen you do on this thread to this point, is diss those NOT agreeing with you and NOT showing reasons or examples of what YOU have to offer that could turn this "mythicist " point of view on its head. So, please SHOW this alleged historical accuracy as to an Historial Jesus YOU have uncovered.

I am more than happy to view any information you may have... unless it is "wiki" opinion pieces. I want to know what hard core research YOU personally have done.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

Catalyst

[historia]

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who believe this mythicist hypothesis. I just find that their arguments are based on a grand number of misconceptions.

Well I don't know what "grand number of misconceptions" to which you refer. Care to share? This enquiring mind wants to know.

For starters, many of the 'mythicists' I've talked to here seem to know very little about the historical method or the nature of ancient historical writings. And so they wrongly imagine that the sources we have for Jesus of Nazareth are somehow uniquely problematic, when, in fact, they exhibit many of the same qualities (written decades after the fact, biased, a propensity toward legend) that we see in other ancient writings.

Here's another common theme I see:

As such, there could have been a multitude of "religious healers" running around the traps

I think it very likely there was. There were lots of people named John who were in favor of the American Revolution, too. That doesn't mean there wasn't a specific individual named John Adams.

Much like your previous (and wildly exaggerated) argument about Jesus's teachings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, you seem to be arguing here that Jesus was not totally unique. But who ever said he was? Certainly not historians.

So, like a lot of others here, you're not arguing against the existence of Jesus, per se, but some (much exaggerated) misconception about Jesus that apparently some Christians hold. It's easy to knock down these straw men arguments, but that's missing the real issues.

With due respect to you Historia, when push comes to shove it is the Christian ideology model: the Jesus of Nazareth character, that any research into the supposed actual historisy, behind, is based.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. What is the "Christian ideology model" ?

It is apparent even by your cited comment from Mr Erhman, that Mr Erhman was referring to the "Jesus of Nazareth" character to even bring the concept of christianity into the equation. It seems a logical conclusion for me at least as that's his reference point. If you DON'T think he is referring to that character, then WHO?

The phrase "historical Jesus" is used by scholars to refer to Jesus of Nazareth as best we can reconstuct his life using historical methods. As opposed to the "Christ of faith" -- that is, later Christian ideas about Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain why "X" is deemed an expert in your eyes, but "Y" would be considered non-expert?

Experts typically posess a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree) in that specific (or closley related) field of study. They have published articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals, and have likely written several books. They are highly cited by other scholars, and widely regarded as influencial within their field.

Non-experts are not.

Is perhaps an "expert" ONLY someone whose take or spin on an issue, is one YOU personally agree with, so they MUST know their "stuff"?

I disagree with many of the the conclusions of John Dominic Crossan. Nevertheless, he is undoubtably one of the most important and influential scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies today.

The ONLY writer whose book (and only read one...don't even know the titles of the others) is Dan Barker's: Losing Faith in Faith, whose view BTW as to the historisy of the "Jesus of Nazareth" character, differs to mine and frankly seeking HIS spin on the whole thing was not my reasoning for reading it in the first place or ever.

That said, even though I don't agree with him, maybe you see HIM as a "non-expert" on such matters?

Dan Barker is certainly not an expert on the historical Jesus. Moreover, I'm sure he would say the same thing.

I would have to guess that for you to make judgements as to what constitutes expertise in the area, vs NON-expertise, you have personally experienced all sides of the equation including: attending theological college or Seminary to SPECIFICALLY "train" to be a Pastor, Minister, Priest; have a broad (or a working) knowledge YOURSELF of Biblical Hebrew, Attic and Koine Greek (at the VERY least) : have travelled to the countries and places mentioned relating to said figure and other biblical figures yourself to see how the "hype" vs the actuality, over all historical references for example, mesh?

You don't have to personally be an expert in a specific field to be able to identify who the experts are. A proper literature review will allow you to uncover that.

I mean merely reading other's works and agreeing with it and taking it on as YOUR OWN, hardly makes one an expert now, does it.

I never claimed to be an expert myself. I have read widely on this topic, however, and identified and evaluated the best sources and authors, as anyone who is serious about studying a topic like this would. I know who the experts are.

I suppose it really comes down to the personality type you are Historia. Some are the type to believe any old "stuff" they are told and opt to believe it....even IF their conscience is "niggling" at them. It is living with a relatively "comfy" lie. It's so much easier to live with isn't it than being accused, or even people have their own "suspicions" that you are nothing more than an "OUT THERE" freak of some stripe or another.

This is not an emotional issue for me. It's not about"niggling," "comfy," or "suspicious" feelings. I've read widely and critically on this topic. I find the arguments of the experts to be compelling and those of the mythicists to be weak. Simple as that.

The idea that some people are perhaps emotionally drawn to conspiracy theories and other radical, alternative hypotheses, and that this may explain why some atheists are drawn to the mythicist hypothesis is intriguing, though. I think you may be on to something there.

So, please SHOW this alleged historical accuracy as to an Historial Jesus YOU have uncovered.

I've participated in a couple of threads on this topic over the past year, and offered some thoughts in those, including recently providing a short biography for Goat. You might start there.

[Goat]

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who believe this mythicist hypothesis. I just find that their arguments are based on a grand number of misconceptions.

Well I don't know what "grand number of misconceptions" to which you refer. Care to share? This enquiring mind wants to know.

For starters, many of the 'mythicists' I've talked to here seem to know very little about the historical method or the nature of ancient historical writings. And so they wrongly imagine that the sources we have for Jesus of Nazareth are somehow uniquely problematic, when, in fact, they exhibit many of the same qualities (written decades after the fact, biased, a propensity toward legend) that we see in other ancient writings.

Here's another common theme I see:

As such, there could have been a multitude of "religious healers" running around the traps

I think it very likely there was. There were lots of people named John who were in favor of the American Revolution, too. That doesn't mean there wasn't a specific individual named John Adams.

Much like your previous (and wildly exaggerated) argument about Jesus's teachings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, you seem to be arguing here that Jesus was not totally unique. But who ever said he was? Certainly not historians.

So, like a lot of others here, you're not arguing against the existence of Jesus, per se, but some (much exaggerated) misconception about Jesus that apparently some Christians hold. It's easy to knock down these straw men arguments, but that's missing the real issues.

With due respect to you Historia, when push comes to shove it is the Christian ideology model: the Jesus of Nazareth character, that any research into the supposed actual historisy, behind, is based.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. What is the "Christian ideology model" ?

It is apparent even by your cited comment from Mr Erhman, that Mr Erhman was referring to the "Jesus of Nazareth" character to even bring the concept of christianity into the equation. It seems a logical conclusion for me at least as that's his reference point. If you DON'T think he is referring to that character, then WHO?

The phrase "historical Jesus" is used by scholars to refer to Jesus of Nazareth as best we can reconstuct his life using historical methods. As opposed to the "Christ of faith" -- that is, later Christian ideas about Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain why "X" is deemed an expert in your eyes, but "Y" would be considered non-expert?

Experts typically posess a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree) in that specific (or closley related) field of study. They have published articles on the topic in peer reviewed journals, and have likely written several books. They are highly cited by other scholars, and widely regarded as influencial within their field.

Non-experts are not.

Is perhaps an "expert" ONLY someone whose take or spin on an issue, is one YOU personally agree with, so they MUST know their "stuff"?

I disagree with many of the the conclusions of John Dominic Crossan. Nevertheless, he is undoubtably one of the most important and influential scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies today.

The ONLY writer whose book (and only read one...don't even know the titles of the others) is Dan Barker's: Losing Faith in Faith, whose view BTW as to the historisy of the "Jesus of Nazareth" character, differs to mine and frankly seeking HIS spin on the whole thing was not my reasoning for reading it in the first place or ever.

That said, even though I don't agree with him, maybe you see HIM as a "non-expert" on such matters?

Dan Barker is certainly not an expert on the historical Jesus. Moreover, I'm sure he would say the same thing.

I would have to guess that for you to make judgements as to what constitutes expertise in the area, vs NON-expertise, you have personally experienced all sides of the equation including: attending theological college or Seminary to SPECIFICALLY "train" to be a Pastor, Minister, Priest; have a broad (or a working) knowledge YOURSELF of Biblical Hebrew, Attic and Koine Greek (at the VERY least) : have travelled to the countries and places mentioned relating to said figure and other biblical figures yourself to see how the "hype" vs the actuality, over all historical references for example, mesh?

You don't have to personally be an expert in a specific field to be able to identify who the experts are. A proper literature review will allow you to uncover that.

I mean merely reading other's works and agreeing with it and taking it on as YOUR OWN, hardly makes one an expert now, does it.

I never claimed to be an expert myself. I have read widely on this topic, however, and identified and evaluated the best sources and authors, as anyone who is serious about studying a topic like this would. I know who the experts are.

I suppose it really comes down to the personality type you are Historia. Some are the type to believe any old "stuff" they are told and opt to believe it....even IF their conscience is "niggling" at them. It is living with a relatively "comfy" lie. It's so much easier to live with isn't it than being accused, or even people have their own "suspicions" that you are nothing more than an "OUT THERE" freak of some stripe or another.

This is not an emotional issue for me. It's not about"niggling," "comfy," or "suspicious" feelings. I've read widely and critically on this topic. I find the arguments of the experts to be compelling and those of the mythicists to be weak. Simple as that.

The idea that some people are perhaps emotionally drawn to conspiracy theories and other radical, alternative hypotheses, and that this may explain why some atheists are drawn to the mythicist hypothesis is intriguing, though. I think you may be on to something there.

So, please SHOW this alleged historical accuracy as to an Historial Jesus YOU have uncovered.

I've participated in a couple of threads on this topic over the past year, and offered some thoughts in those, including recently providing a short biography for Goat. You might start there.

I find your example of John and John Adams to be boardering on the absurd. There is some very big differences.. such as 'We know where John Adams grave is'.. and 'We have writings about him that are contemporary.. written during his life time', and ' we have writings directly by him'... (those are three differences).

I find the people who want to promote that there is more evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus than there go to absurd lengths with bad analogies to promote that concept.

For example. you pointed me to 'The Historical Jesus' by E.P. Sanders for 'new information' about the historical Jesus. It was no such thing. E.P. Sanders approached the subject by taking as an given that Jesus existed, and then made a case for a specific type of Jesus.. looking at the culture of the time... and ignoring any information that didn't fit into his thesis. Other than acknowledging the evidence was scant, he approached it by ignoring the issue.

OF course, the issue isn't made any clearer because of the historical record being fudged by some of the early Christians.. the fact that the Testimonium flavious was at least modified (and in my opinion the evidence shows a total insertion) shows that things got corrupted by 'pious fraud'.

[Mithrae]

I would have to guess that for you to make judgements as to what constitutes expertise in the area, vs NON-expertise, you have personally experienced all sides of the equation including: attending theological college or Seminary to SPECIFICALLY "train" to be a Pastor, Minister, Priest; have a broad (or a working) knowledge YOURSELF of Biblical Hebrew, Attic and Koine Greek (at the VERY least) : have travelled to the countries and places mentioned relating to said figure and other biblical figures yourself to see how the "hype" vs the actuality, over all historical references for example, mesh?

You don't have to personally be an expert in a specific field to be able to identify who the experts are. A proper literature review will allow you to uncover that.

I mean merely reading other's works and agreeing with it and taking it on as YOUR OWN, hardly makes one an expert now, does it.

I never claimed to be an expert myself. I have read widely on this topic, however, and identified and evaluated the best sources and authors, as anyone who is serious about studying a topic like this would. I know who the experts are.

I suppose it really comes down to the personality type you are Historia. Some are the type to believe any old "stuff" they are told and opt to believe it....even IF their conscience is "niggling" at them. It is living with a relatively "comfy" lie. It's so much easier to live with isn't it than being accused, or even people have their own "suspicions" that you are nothing more than an "OUT THERE" freak of some stripe or another.

This is not an emotional issue for me. It's not about"niggling," "comfy," or "suspicious" feelings. I've read widely and critically on this topic. I find the arguments of the experts to be compelling and those of the mythicists to be weak. Simple as that.

I think it's worth noting that as far as I've gathered, myself, Historia, ThatGirlAgain and Student would all probably agree on upwards of 70% of views about Jesus. In fairness I don't recall seeing what Historia has said in the negative regarding Jesus (he might be a closet evangelical arguing the intellectual side, but my memory is far from perfect ). But for my part I haven't done half the reading he has; besides Josh McDowall's dubious apologetics I've done virtually no reading of published works on the subject, but as a semi-active researcher and sceptical participant in debate forums for several years before joining this one, mostly what I've read by those two pursuing formal education in the field seems both better substantiated and more reasonable than the alternatives. I've even learned a thing or two from them

While I acknowledge that it serves a valid cultural purpose, Jesus-mythicism does seem to qualify as fringe scholarship far more than balanced hypothesis, from what I've gathered.