Did Jesus Actually Exist?

I tend to agree with that. And that's not from a review of the evidence, but simply from the application of Ockham's Razor. It's simply more plausible that someone named Jesus (or Yeshua or whatever) actually existed than to create him out of thin air. That is not to say, however, that the historical Jesus was divine or that he did everything that is described in scripture, any more than admitting that Alexander the Great existed is to admit that he was divine or that he did everything that is described in the chronicles of his life.

NONSENSE as whether or not the written records themselves did survive the thousands of years between now and then, many many others had quoted from those records while they was in existence that had survive to this day,.

In fact the records dating back to that time period existed when others hundred of years afterward was writing their materials that we do have to this day.

So we do know one hell of a lot of what was contain in those records and it is not the same as the Jesus situation.

We have coinage from Alexander's reign--there is coinage from the reign of Philip portraying Alexander. Many cities were named for him, including the city in Egypt which still bears his name. We have the evidence of the Hellenistic kingdoms which arose immediately after his death. Certainly, there is no basis for much of what it is claimed he did, and i have no problem with acknowledging that. His claim to be descended from Homeric heroes, which he attempted to reinforce by going to the oasis at Siwa (so it is said) should certainly be dismissed out of hand.

Whatever others here may have said, my point is that there is no contemporary evidence for Jeebus. No cities named for him, no coinage, no abundant evidence for the actions of his successors, as is the case f0r Alexander. Joe's argument is a non-starter.

Olive Tree is saying that no alternative hypothesis has been advanced. That's bullsh*t. Every time someone has cited and linked alternative accounts, Olive Tree has dismissed them. All i can see is that he dismisses anything which does not agree with his thesis.

Agreed.

I have looked at some of these rival hypothesis. They come in many colors, some mystical ('Jesus was God, who only made believe that he was a man'), some saying a prior religion (Mitra, a cult of Joshua, etc) already existed prior to 1st century CE and morphed into Christianity for some reason, others opining that a bunch of Romans or Greeks wrote the whole of it, à la "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". None of these does a better job at explaining the data than the idea of a historical Jesus.

Soooooo, what did Louis Feldman say about Josephus' mention of Jesus, again?

Just to check whether you've done your homework... And whether you want to keep up spreading lies or have the courage to acknowledge the truth.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC&pg=PA56&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport&dq=Josephus,+Judaism+and+Christianity+Louis+H.+Feldman,+Gohei+Hata&output=html_text

That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage – the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged – about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of “the aforementioned Christ”.
Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, by Louis Harry Feldman & Gōhei Hata, 1997, ISBN 90-04-08554-8, page 56

I will refer you back to the passage, from a source you provided, to the effect that the James, brother of Jesus referred to was a reference to a James the brother of an official of the temple, named Yeshua, whose name becomes Jesus in latinate texts. You dismissed that, of course, just as you dismiss anything which contradicts or otherwise disagrees with you thesis.

Then you clearly misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying that the extent or quality of the historical evidence for Alexander is comparable to that for Jesus. I'm saying that the evidence we have for Alexander's life has the same legal basis as the evidence for Jesus's life -- i.e. both are hearsay.

Monumental inscriptions and coinage are not hearsay, whatever conceits you may entertain about "legal" bases for evidence.

That was not my point. You have said numerous times that Louis Feldman did a survey of scholars showing the the majority of them believes the Josephus passageS (plural) about Jesus in Antiquities had been redacted or added by a later copyist.

These statements were FALSE, in that Feldman wrote this about ONE passage only, in book 18 (so-called Testimonium). He considers the book 20 passage about James to be valid, about Jesus, and accepted as such nearly universally.

In fact, his theory is that the book 20 passage REFERS to the earlier passage in book 18, in a non-redacted form ("aforementioned Christ"), and thus that the Testimonium was, as written by Josephus, a shorter passage mentioning Jesus later expanded on by a copyist. But that's a tangent.

The point is that you have been spreading FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT FELDMAN. An intellectually honest poster would acknowledge that.

No, i did not say that. I stated, as can easily be confirmed by reviewing the publication by Feldman in 1984, that the scholars to whom he referred (and named) considered the Josephus passages to be in part or entirely interpolation. If you don't know what interpolation means, look it up. I have not been "spreading false information." I have been very clear and specific about the paper which Dr. Feldman published in 1984. I mentioned that publication not to suggest the Feldman held such an opinion, but for its value as a review of modern scholarship. You just can't resist the temptation of vilify any one who does not agree with your thesis.

You are pathetic. Why don't you trot out your quasi-Godwin's law statement to the effect that anyone who doesn't agree with you thesis is equivalent to a holocaust denier. You become more hysterical and more shrill as time goes on.

Well then we know something else that you don't understand - the hearsay rule. Don't feel bad, though. I know of a number of lawyers and even some judges who can't quite grasp it. And if you have a problem with imposing the same rules of evidence on historians as are imposed on lawyers, take it up with Thomas. That's his argument, not mine.

FREE THINKING
You are correct about historians getting away of doubting the holocaust, for example in Europe, if a historian or any person denies it, then he can get himself into jail... and such is against free speech... just to protect the fallacies involving the assumed 6 million deaths...

The rest of historians get well paid to keep their mouth shut.

A teacher in Washington DC gave the homework of comparing Hitler with W. Bush, and she was forced to retreat. Actually the task was good, because the motto was not necessarily the finding of similarities but a free assignment that would show discrepancies after discrepancies. But, as usual, there are idiots try to stop free thinking everywhere and the assignment had to be cancelled.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/11/sixth-grade-school-assignment-ask-students-to-compare-bush-to-hitler/

FAKE EVIDENCE

On the other hand, when the remembrance of a historical event is pushed hard, but very hard, it's because it's a lie.

You don't see people remembering Pearl Harbor building museums in every country and collecting "evidence" by millions "to prove their point"... Lol

Neither the history about Jesus needed of such crap propaganda, just four gospels and a few letters from the followers and witness, and a few commentaries from others were enough to change the entire modern world. Even today, Christianity is reaching China, and places where other religions rule as the official ones.

While posters here are expecting "millions of evidence" to prove his existence, the only way to do so is by making fake evidence, (like the holocaust case), and this action is not needed because the dude Jesus existed anyway as a man walking on earth.

A NEED TO FIND GENEALOGICAL RECORDS

So, I will suggest - a simple suggestion- to find the birth records of Yeshu, which might be under ruins in Bethlehem. It was a common custom to write the names of the new born baby and the family. Specially if the new born was a descendant of King David.

And from those records is how the authors of Mathews and Luke gospels obtained such genealogic description, one from father's side and one from mother's side.

Or what do you think? That they wrote such genealogies by heart?

Are you nuts?!

Can't you think?!

(Just kidding)

Exactly what I meant. Now, this is in direct contradiction with his statement on the book 20 passage I posted: "the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged", says Feldman.

What seems to be the case, is that Feldman made a review of the existing literature ON THE TESTIMONIUM ONLY, ie only ONE passage, not on the OTHER, much shorter passage in book 20 on James execution.

Please read carefully the bottom para on this page, starting with "In my Josephus and Modern Scholarship...":
http://books.google.com/books?id=E90FkMEurOYC&pg=PA13&dq=Louis+H.+Feldman+flavianum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mO5OVJrGIIyNsQSQ-oDQAw&ved=0CCoQuwUwAg

Is this the 'survey' you have in mind? Cause this is ONLY ABOUT THE TESTIMONIUM, NOT ABOUT BOTH PASSAGES. Not about book 20.

Can you register that, and stop systematically misrepresenting Feldman's data and thoughts? Thank you.

That's a very fair point. Maybe I have overestimated the parallels.

In fairness to Joe, I think that's a leftover from his debunking of my notion that appropriate evidence about historical claims should be very similar to legally permissible evidence about legal claims.

I see this and Thomas' remarks also. My objection is that you are saying that the hearsay evidence for Alexander is no better than the hearsay evidence for the putative Jeebus, and i just cannot accept that claim.

Two days ago was the 599th anniversary of the battle of Azincourt (which the English, in their typically bloody-minded fashion, insist on calling Agincourt). There are seven contemporary accounts of the battle. Only one purports to be an eyewitness account by an Englishman--the Henrici Quinti, Angliæ regis, gesta, cum Chronicâ Neustriæ, gallicè. It is thought to be by one of Henry's chaplains. But the chaplains, pages and squires were in or near the hamlet of Maisoncelle during the fighting. After the first and second Franco-Burgundian battles had been mauled by the English and were retreating, a body of mounted men attacked Maisoncelle and the baggage train. It is most likely that any of Henry's chaplains would not have climbed up to the plateau on which the fighting took place until that time. So such an individual would only have seen Henry order the killing of the captives, his order to countermand that order, and the retreat of the third Franco-Burgundian battle, the effective end of the engagement. The "Deeds of Henry the Fifth" says that at the end of the battle, Henry called upon the heralds, the inviolable men at arms who sat in the woods near the hamlet of Azincourt and watched the course of the battle, to make statements. That would make the author of the gesta a purveyor of hearsay evidence, rather than an actual eye-witness.

One of the most detailed, balanced and circumstantial accounts is that of the Monk of St. Denis (not otherwise named). He does not claim to have been an eyewitness, so his account is obviously hearsay. He puts the balance of forces at 1500 English knights, nobles and men at arms, and 6000 archers, for a total of 7500. (That is somewhat higher than most other estimates except that of Dr. Anne Curry.) He gives the figures of the the Franco-Burgundians at 50,000. That, however, includes servants, sumpters and camp followers, something about which he likely could have had evidence, while he would have had no evidence for those persons in the English train. All in all, his account is one of the most plausible. The anonymous author of the "Deeds of Henry the Fifth" says the English were outnumbered 30 to 1, claiming a thousand men at arms and four thousand archers--to 150,000 Franco-Burgundians. That's a wildly implausible account, and from someone supposedly an eyewitness. Yet the battle of Azincourt is the best attested military event of the Hundred Years War.

Most history is based on hearsay evidence, and historiography is usually about 75% a process of judging the value of that hearsay, and winnowing out unlikely or wildly implausible claims. That's true of an event 600 years ago, and even more the case with the accounts of the putative Jeebus, less than 2000 years ago, or the life of Alexander, well over 2200 years ago. There is no one who claims to have contemporary testimony about the putative Jeebus. Even dubious accounts such as that attributed to Tacitus and Josephus do not include statements on their part of where they got their information. Arrian, in writing his Anabasis, states that he relied on the accounts of Aristobulus (sp?) and Ptolemy. Ptolemy was one of the Companions, going back to the days when they were all boys together being tutored by Aristotle. Ptolemy accompanied Alexander throughout the campaigns in Aisa, and i believe i am correct in stating that he was present at Alexander's death bed. There's hearsay evidence and there's hearsay evidence, and that for Jeebus is dubious at best, while that for Alexander is first rate.

Despite your sneer, i understand about hearsay evidence, which is why i cannot accept your claim that the hearsay evidence for Alexander is no better than the hearsay evidence for Jeebus.

How many times have I found myself sad that the great library at Alexandria and similar libraries of the ancient world did not survive to this day.

Not until the printing press came along was we safe from losing massive amount of our knowledge of our past from local events such as wars and fires that destroy the few copies of hand written books.

I am getting somewhat concern about all our knowledge now more and more being store in digit formats where if the human race would have a set back where we not longer have our high tech, those records would become available to us.

There is now a doom day storage of seeds and perhaps we should begin to think about setting up doom days sites for our most important knowledge.

Joe's point is that history and historian cannot throw away hearsay but must find ways to weight it's credibility, so you are not saying anything different.

You're not smarter than the average GW denier, Set. You deny evidence, you misunderstand willingly, you lie about scientists and facts, you write walls of irrelevant text about Agincourt to convince us that you know your ****, but the problem is you have no intellectual honesty on this issue.

Guess i might as well start a discussion with Qehog or whatever his name his.

In any case, the question asked by this thread has long been answered: the scientific view on the issue is pro-historical Jesus, by an overwhelming margin.

My debaters have been unable to find one single living scholar who is a doubter. They haven't produced ONE SINGLE SCHOLARLY PUBLICATION in favor of the thesis. They can't because it does not exist. The myth thesis is dead in academia and survives on fringe websites and forums such as A2K.

Amateurs...

Then your objection is misplaced, as you are arguing with a strawman. I never said that the hearsay evidence for Alexander is no better than the hearsay evidence for Jesus, I said that both sets of evidence are hearsay. And, it now appears, you agree with me. So I'm not sure what your beef is.