Did Jesus Actually Exist?

There's no need to get snotty. Is it this guy? Are you this guy? (Younger obviously)

You've only got yourself to blame, if only you constantly and repetitively said that you were completely agnostic on pretty much everything, people wouldn't get the wrong idea.

In particular, I disagree that the evangelists are trustworthy witnesses to anything.

Frank is actually a giant blue carrot.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence



Dilling Exhibit 47
Begins
could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

In particular, I disagree that the evangelists are trustworthy witnesses to anything.

Why?

Hey Frank, I had no idea who those people were either. I right clicked on the image and did a google search.

The guy in the hat, is apparantly in a show called My Name is Earl. They didn't give the name as I guess everyone is suppossed to know who that is. No clue.

The 2nd huge photo. It says it's someone name Jim Logan. Again, no idea.

Because much of the evangelists' testimony cannot possibly be true, being inconsistent with the laws of nature.

We know the evangelists were dishonest or incompetent about at least some of the 'facts' they alleged. Therefore, I think, all their testimony is untrustworthy, including the parts that we don't know to be untrue.

Quote:

Because much of the evangelists' testimony cannot possibly be true, being inconsistent with the laws of nature.

That's not true. Most of the gospels is about perfectly natural things, like preaching. Even the healing part is not that supernatural.

We know the evangelists were dishonest or incompetent about at least some of the 'facts' they alleged. Therefore, I think, all their testimony is untrustworthy, including the parts that we don't know to be untrue.

No, we don't "know" that. We have no reason to assume bad faith.

And more or less they did, in the sense that a certain body of philosophy and ethics was passed down to us thanks to their work.

But once again, you did not pay attention while you were reading. I did not say "most", I said "much".

The other possibility I suggested was incompetence, which does not imply bad faith.

I don't see how passing down a body of philosophy has anything to do with being trustworthy about facts.

Deities in the Iliad

I suppose that qualifies as "much"... Does that mean we cannot trust the Iliad at all, and that Troy is therefore a myth?

Ideas are also facts, if you will.

There may or may not have been a city of Troy in Homeric times, and it may or may not be the city that Heinrich Schliemann excavated and called Troy in the 19th century. So to answer your question, yes the Homeric Troy is a myth, and no the Illiad is not a trustworthy source for establishing its existence.

I don't. That's wishful thinking.