we dont even have that.... thats assumption, theres no evidence for these events.

why dont you subscribe to the jesus myth theory? i dont per se but will not write it off and think its got more credence then many give it credit for.

ive said many times why i think he might have been a construct.

Your posts have the scent of conspiracy theory when you use terms like "the construct had to be."

Or something deliberately done to fool people. Like conspiring to put actors in the Boston Marathon.

Why do you say Josephus didn't mention Jesus, when he clearly did? As "Jesus, who was said to be the messiah."

I think I said the last time, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.

And for the life of me, I can't see how you can determine what Christianity rises and falls on, if you aren't Christian.

what part of 'there is no contemporary evidence for jesus' do you not understand? theres nothing at all to support this biblical characters existence, and that is a fact.

I think I said the last time, and now another time after that, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.

By 'all we have', I essentially mean by way of the general historical consensus. They're the two things that seem to be agreed on - but we've often discovered later on that such things were incorrect. I know there is talk of Jesus surviving the crucifixion too (perpetuated in Islamic belief, if I recall correctly).

My own reasons for not subscribing is that I don't think it's improbable that there was a Jesus who proclaimed himself the messiah or prophet, only because we know of many other less-known people of that age who did as well, each with their own followers. So to me it doesn't seem unreasonable that there was a Jesus with followers - and it was with the followers that the embellishment and 'legend' began.

The very same could be said for your posts.

Except you have no evidence of what was embellished or not. Just your opinion. While being opposed to historians you don't like, having their opinions.

There's no conspiracy in my posts at all. Everything I've said has been backed up by historians including atheist ones. What a bizarre comment.

historians do not make things up then present them as facts.

some historians might believe jesus existed, not 1 can present it as a fact.

you still dont identify which version of jesus historians think existed..

of course i can decide what christianity rises and falls on... it tells us in the bible. you dont have to be a christian to read that

"...hostile to Christianity".

Proves my point about your hypocrisy in regards to conspiracy.

...And the hypocrisy sonar sounds once more: "historians you don't like"

Hopefully the last time I will say that historians don't deal in proof, mushy.

They deal in probabilities.

And most credible historians looked at the evidence and concluded that Jesus was a historical figure.

If you have evidence that the historians were wrong, then the burden shifts to you to show how they were wrong.

fair play


no serious historian, scholar, scientist, person, believes in supernatural events as described and attributed to jesus in the bible. that IS evidence of embellishment.

hiding behind historians again yawn... historians cannot prove jesus existed, a silence that screams presents the facts, nothing there can be disproven and as such it makes a compelling, reasoned, argument for jesus being a total construct.

....Am I speaking another language? Only, I seem to have to keep repeating myself that I do not deny (a) Jesus exists.

You seem to believe - wrongly - that because the consensus is that Jesus exists, that it automatically assumes everything believed about him is true. That is most certainly not the case.

but how can the existence of jesus be 'probable' when theres no evidence for it?

and WHICH version of jesus do they think is probable? you still dont answer that question.

a silence that screams presents the evidence, or lack of it. given the facts presented there, i cannot understand why jesus existence in any form can be accepted by anyone (unbiased).

All but a few fringe scholars think Jesus existed as a historical figure.

So it's not who I like or don't like.

They can't speak as to whether Jesus did miracles or not. That's beyond the scope of historians.

Yet we have miracles in our own day, based on belief. So not far fetched that he was connected to some miracles.

From all accounts he was a remarkable person and a remarkable preacher. As I see it he did not claim he was the Son of God.

EXACTLY! thats why he/she wont/cant say which 'version' of jesus they believed probably existed.

it was said long ago that theres a huge difference between believing the biblical son of god existed, to believing a preacher called jesus existed (but not the son of god).

Mushy how can you not understand it when I explained several times how historians decide what is likely true or not, when physical evidence has been lost over time?

Maybe you should read on this subject and come back.

And not keep quoting from some un-evidenced atheist blog.

biased accounts composed many years later...

but if he wasnt the son of god, surely the whole religion collapses! it really doesnt matter whether he claimed it or not, it matters whether he was or not.

It doesn't have to be one version of Jesus. That's the cliche anti theist battle cry you're raising there. That believers have to share the same version of Jesus.

They do not.

Jesus can be the son of God as we are all the sons of God.. Just a more perfected example. He said himself that his disciples could do greater things than he did. That only God had knowledge of the coming kingdom.

You can't tell people what to believe or not believe. Sorry about that.

because theres no evidence from contemporary or unbiased sources.. thats why i dont undrstand why historians can declare jesus existed. the 'evidence' is from biased sources and as such is dodgy.

un-evidenced blog?.... its a blog that presents the facts. unbiased, cold hard facts.

http://christianity.stackexchange.co...the-son-of-god

Well people seem to think he did.

I responded to the perception of 'miracles' in the other thread.

If then, you take extraordinary events as being possible 'cos of miracles', then there's any number of implausible events and stories you must also believe to be credible - e.g. Mohammed's splitting of the moon?

"Remarkable teacher and preacher" - that IS personal opinion, not historical. There may have been any number of preachers/teachers and self-proclaimed messiahs that could be considered 'remarkable' in that age - it just so happens that Jesus attracted the most after his death, decades to centuries after.

Not going to digress to the favorite subject here of bashing Islam.

I was referring to the likelihood that Jesus was connected to healing.

But that historians cannot say that he certainly was. They can only speak to his reputation for healing.

Nor can they say, as you imply, that Jesus did not do healing. That's just an atheist opinion. No better than any garden variety opinion.

And another strike from la grande cloche de l'hypocrisie echoes...

you downplay your saviour....

thats just woolly nonsense, you cant have it both ways..... either the biblical jesus is 100% accurate and true, or its not, and if its not the religion collapses. no fudges, no excuses, its as black and white as that.

I don't downplay Jesus. I look to his own words.

You just want to hold people to some non existent 100% that isn't there for atheists. Atheist is just a lack of belief, no proof.

The old double standard.