Miss Taken wrote:GoodK, if I could see a good argument for the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a person then I would take it on board.
A good argument? A complete lack of any contemporary evidence for the Jesus character in the Bible isn't good enough?
How does one go about proving something doesn't or never existed?
The New Testament, as a historical document, is pretty good evidence in my opinion and I wonder why you would reject it completely out of hand. Woven into what may well be, plenty of myth, is a man, whose mother was Mary, who had a family of brothers and sisters and who probably met a violent death at the hands of either/or/and certain Jewish groups and the Romans.
From Matthew:12
55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Homer's Iliad was thought to be fiction, until Schliemann used it for clues to identify Troy's location. Myth's are often built on a kernel of truth, surely?
I'm quite happy to debate (as many on your list are) the personality, life and actions of this man, but I don't think that there are that many
historians of repute who would state that he never existed.
I disagree.
What you seemed to have quoted above, are a long line of people who doubt Jesus' divinity, miracles and the way that his name has been used to often justify quite horrific practices and beliefs. I don't see that you are quoting that many there that would deny that he existed as an itinerant Jewish preacher.
# "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
Robert E. Van Voorst is a pastor. Do you expect me to be surprised that he doesn't deny the existence of Jesus?
It's not who he is, that is important in this, but the statement he made. Prove that he is wrong.
I also think that there is evidence from non-biblical sources that Jesus existed as a person (was greatly interested in Trevor's thoughts on the subject of Tacitus for instance).Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117)
Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).
Why is your Tacitus quote so different than mine?
Probably because there are a number of translations out there.
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind
Are you paraphrasing? What part of Annals XV are you quoting?
I'll go check Goodk.
I'll wait for your response before I move on to the other Pagan writer/historians and the Josephus fraud you've cited (that has been well established as a hoax for longer than I have been alive)
I'm aware of the research that has been done to suggest that certain paragraphs of Josephus were added to or embelished, but I'm not aware of any that conclusively prooves the non-existence of Jesus. (http://www.british-israel.ca/josephus.htm) Even the Slavonic Josephus is evidence of the existence of Jesus, albeit in a much changed format.
Mary