I dont think i have to prove a negative in the case of Jesus , i just await the evidence that can prove his existance in credible historic terms.

Im not doubting Paul as a historical figure in fact its not my concern.

And one of this ammounts to a convincing argument:
With respect to historians: Jesus is not worth mentioning until his cult gains status. You mention the many other supposed Messiahs of the period; why would historians mention Jesus when there are so many others apparently just like him? No reason to. Instead, historians pick up on the figure Jesus once his Apostles have turned the cult into a serious religious movement. The Apostles did know the man. For example, we know St. Peter lived and was crucified. And there are other Apostles as well who are historically sound who testified to the existence of the man.

Which was that Jesus is so highly exalted by society that his historical non-existence is difficult to bear. I find it hard to believe that a man such a Daniel Dennett, a world famous atheist philosopher, would accept Jesus' historical existence because of the weight of societal pressure, especially given the fact that many Christians have denied the historical existence of Jesus, a theory popular prior to the turn of the century when societal pressure to assent to the historical existence of Jesus was much more significant than in today's society, the society that plays on the esteemed atheist Mr. Dennett.

Is it possible that Jesus never historically existed? You bet! I'd never argue otherwise. The point, however, is that the most reasonable conclusion, given the evidence, is that a man named Jesus did live and taught. What he taught, the details of his life: these are all, historically, unknown.

And those terms are? Do you make the same demand as hue-man to produce either contemporary artefacts or documents? I can do that by pointing to the Gospels and Epistles, but you will reject those documents. So, I ask on what ground you make that rejection. It is the reason for my question about Paul.



Alright, why don't you doubt Paul's existence? Because we have the letters he wrote? You do realize the documents we have are copies, not the originals (which is the case with many "contemporary" documents for other historical figures). "Historical evidence" - especially for ancient history - is riddled with leaps of faith. But, it's nice that you're not going to play "absolute skeptic" with me.

So, what about Paul's companions: Barnabus, John Mark, and Luke. Are they historical?

I discount them because they are not historical evidence

I guess we're done, then. You discount them without reason is what you're really saying. I asked if your definition of "historical evidence" matched that of hue-man, and I can't proceed unless you answer. If you give no definition, your terms have no meaning.

I will say thanks to hue-man for offering up a definition. It was more restrictive than what most professors of ancient history use, but I was willing to work it for the sake of this particular discussion. As a side note, I did find it very interesting that when I pulled keywords from that definition to do some searches (searches that didn't include Jesus' name), I got website after website using those terms in debates over Jesus' existence, but no one else. Further, I got zero hits, yes, zero, from accredited historical journals. Take that for what it's worth.

If you wish to withdraw , so be it , but historical evidence is not an alien concept. I understand your problem..really..

How is a man that was supposedly called the king of the Jews, and reportedly ordered to be killed by Pontius Pilote not worth mentioning? He's not even in Pontius Pilote's records!

What evidence to you have for the historicity of St. Peter? Some believe that the myth of St. Peter was used to support the authority of the catholic church.

Didymos, I did not say that Dennett accepts Jesus' historicity because of societal pressure. I'm saying that he probably accepts it from because of societal influence, the same reason why all of the ancient polytheists believed that there Gods were historical.

Well, I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't historical.

Looks like Reshna Caner knows more about the matter than I, so I'll let him handle your questions. However, my gut is that Jesus is not, from the perspective of the chroniclers, not worth mentioning because, as you point out, there were so many others apparently like Jesus at the time.

How is a man that was supposedly called the king of the Jews, and reportedly ordered to be killed by Pontius Pilote not worth mentioning? He's not even in Pontius Pilote's records!

Huffing and puffing. If there is proof give it to me if there is not, dont try making up reasons for there not to be .The evidence that he is a myth is more than huffing and puffing..If you cant find the man look at the story and the story is so much like the myths .He may well have existed without records but not as the story tells us. We are looking for two different men..I see a man with message who suffered for his preaching that message. Then to make the message stronger the myths and stories become facts and the man disappears.

I don't think you are listening to him "If there is proof give it to me" He has asked you what you would define proof as and you haven't answered him yet. He would like to give you proof that you would find adequate. If you want proof tell him what you think decent proof should look like or be.

I am listening to him..i said historical..just like anyone else who is historically mentioned..Its not rocket science..I could not prove king Arthur , Robin Hood myths and legends but i could Alexander the great or Napolean , historical figures.

I think he wants to know what degree of something you would take as evidence. Could it be as primitive as scratchings on a paper? Or do you only take written things that were notarized by 15 people as proof of historical accuracy.

What kinds of documents would you say are worthy of being used for historical accuracy?

I have told you evidence relative to the time and substantiated thats what historical proven is, surely? I could show you books about Robin Hood would that convince you of his existanc? Im not being difficult ..I think or i thought everyone would understand proof without laying out pages of rules of what was substantial..

He wishes for you to state why the Epistles are not historical evidence.

Why is the book on Robin Hood not proof, why is any book on myths proof.

Paul wrote them so that is why I would guess why he asked you whether you believed in Pauls historicity. Then if you did why not believe him as a historian.

Jesus never held an official post or owned any property as best we can tell. So, there would not be any official correspondence or artifacts to find unless he had written personal letters. Again, nothing says he ever wrote letters.

So, you're basically right, Didymos. One theory is that many of the Romans never considered him important enough to mention by name. It's not something we can prove, but it's a plausible theory.



Jesus was not King of the Jews. His Jewish opponents accused him of making that claim in order to justify involvement of the Romans. But he never made the claim, nor did any of his followers.

I'm sad to see you make the statement about Pilate. You are a victim of some intellectual dishonesty. For years some historians were claiming that Pilate did not exist ... hmm, a familiar tune here. Then, when an artifact was found with his name on it, they suddenly jumped over the fence and claimed Jesus was never mentioned in Pilate's correspondence. Duh! The reason so little is known about Pilate is that his correpondence was lost. So, if it was lost, of course we're not going to have correspondence from Pilate that mentions Jesus. I find that whole argument disingenuous, dishonest, etc. But I'm not accusing you, hue-man. I imagine it's something you picked up from others.