I mentioned the calendar of the world and the fact that Christ launched a world religion. You threw in all that other stuff about Seneca, Philo, etc. I don't mind addressing those men, but only one at a time. Let me ask you a question. As far as I know, every religion had an historical founder. And some of those religions are not historical in the sense of Christianity, but are more about principles and concepts. Why then doubt that Christianity had a founder? Yale historian Edwin Yamauchi stated that there is more evidence that Jesus existed then for the founder of any other religion (Moreland, "Jesus Under Fire," chap.7) Why this assualt on Jesus only? I know the true answer to my question. But it amazes me.

These issues have already been dealt with on this site and it appears to be nothing more than sheer laziness on your part that you haven't at least attempted to look for and read them. 

A moderator took the time, effort and more patience than I would have had to address your original post.  Your decision to completely ignore his address w/ the weak excuse of "one point at a time" is childish. 

What sense does it make to continue this conversation if your plan is to ignore replies and why should anyone even engage you at all? 

And please tell me you bring more to the table than that idiotic statement by Yamauchi !

 Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out the quoting thing.

He's wasting our time. He simply ignores the key points of arguments, and when you respond to his false claims, he whines that you're writing too much.

If he really were concerned with limiting what was written back to him, he'd do his homework.

I made the point to him, several times, that you can't BOTH hold that the gospels accounts are true AND claim that Jesus was a minor figure. Yet, guess what each every response to the argument from silence from contemporaries was? That Jesus was too minor a figure to catch their notice. He even repeats the same error here! How any sane person could avoid writing about a miracle working, crowd drawing god man, raising people from the dead, himself rising from the dead along with a zombie army of saints, during earthquakes and an eclispse of the sun, is never explained. He just asserts that Philo and Seneca simply wouldn't be interested enough in an invasion of zombie saints during an eclipse to notice.

One wonders what it would take to movitate these men to action.

In addition, he also added the same old error we see from theists: that 'arguments from silence' are always invalid. I pointed out, in detail, how one makes a valid argument from silence. All I heard back was silence....

If a person is really concerned with keeping things brief, they can do so by merely reading what is written to them. So far,

I see no discussion in this thread, no exchange of ideas, no willingness to give even a show of consideration to other views. So far, we're talking at an output-only device. Which seems just about as intelligent as any device that never allows any input - the same errors are repeated, without change.

Here are the points he keeps ignoring:

1)  One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that Jesus a figure that men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca would not take note of...

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. (The writings of Paul are not comptemporary accounts: they do not appear until years after the purported time of Jesus and they include a concession that Paul never actually met Jesus. The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be midrash, not historical documentation: (See: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash)).

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', presents us with a Jesus who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great, that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Elsewhere Mark tells us that the crowds that Jesus drew were so overflowing that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him. Mark also tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1).

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one: we even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture from a ship at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy, proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

2)

How to make an Argument from Silence

According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)

To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.

It ought to be clear to even the casual reader that the men I have cited meet both criteria.

In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:

1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.

It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.

2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.

The miracle claims in the book of Mark violate what we know of nature.

The argument presented here meets the two additional criteria.

 As with most theist encounters, so far this debate has involved me repeating key points that our friend just continues to ignore. If there is yet another failure on his part to deal with point 1, and concede point 2, I see no reason to continue.

David Koresh's disciples died for him, and that story is actually true.

 Yes, the followers of Koresh died for his teaching, and you know what? David Koresh existed. He was a historical person. People don't die for unhistorical fabrications.

What about the UFO the Heavens Gate cultists died to get to?

Hindu Fundamentalists who die for their gods (vs Buddhists in Sri Lanka or Moslems in India/Pakistan.)

Other Bizzarre cults?

  That statement is purely an ideological opinion that depends more upon metaphysical assumptions to rule out the supernatural elements rather than any real historical evidence that would rule it out. Historians do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are involved. They dismiss claims of the supernatural as a matter of ideological bias. But they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is tied to supernatural claims. Most ancient world figures were bound up with such claims. Gilgamish is one example with his ancient flood story which history takes to be mythical. But they see Gilgamesh is an historical person, probably king of ancient Sumer.The law of parsimony (Occam's Razor)  is not a law of logic, and it has been criticized by logicians. The criteria for Occam's razor requires that "All things are equal." If all things are not equal, then the razor cannot be used. With regards to the life of Christ, things are obviously not equal. Second, I've noticed that this website depends alot on Richard Carrier. He is not a careful or accurate historian (if he is even an historian at all). So I think you have engaged in the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy (appeal to authority). 

The very nature of Christianity is based on that extraordinary evidence. This is the nature of the beast. You, however, do rule out the supernatural as your other post clearly demonstrated when you asserted that supernaturalism goes against everyday experience or something to that affect. This assumption is your starting point and your metaphysical presupposition.

That's not correct. As I said before some arguments from silence are not illogical. But your's were. But the fact still remains that an argument from silence is NEVER proof of anything. Even if it is not invalid, it still proves nothing. So you have just basically waisted your time even trying to use it.

I want to add something else to this discussion. It is important for people to know that the "Jesus was myth" theory was never  held in history untill the 19th century. The greatest enemies of ancient Christianity never claimed that Jesus did not exist. If there was sufficient evidence that Jesus was non-historical, his enemies would have most certainly used this argument against the Christians. Celsus was perhaps the greatest ancient enemy to the faith. He attacked Christ and Christianity, but he never once, not once, ever claimed that Jesus was non-historical. Celsus charged that his (Jesus) own people killed him, and that the resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned Jesus' historicity. Origen wrote an extensive apologetic against Celsus (Contra Celsus).

The Babylonian Talmud blasphemes Christ in the highest degree, but it asserts He was a real person.

Lucian of Samosata was another enemy to the faith that never questioned Jesus' historical reality. He even admitted to Jesus crucifiction.

Porphyry of Tyre, is another example. 

The Encyclopedia Britanica affirms this fact:

"....these independent accounts (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.) prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th century, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (Article on Jesus, 1990).

Jesus was considered a bastard and a fool, but never a myth or a legend. (Crossan).

As I mentioned above, it was not untill the 19th century when a German rationalist by the name of Rudolph Bultmann suggested the "Jesus myth" hypothesis. But his thesis was critisized by contemporary scholars, and Bultmann himself later changed his position.

"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community" (Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.13).

The modern Father of the "Jesus is myth" theory is G.A. Wells who himself was not an NT scholar. But he also came to his senses and changed his position.

"G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document" (The Jesus Myth, 1999).

Words from other historians and scholars:

Van Voorst: "Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been pursuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question" (Jesus Outside the New Testament,, p.14).

F.F. Bruce: "The historicity of Christ is axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth' theories"(The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable", 1972).

Otto Betz: "No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" (What do We Know about Jesus," p.9).

E.P. Sanders: "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place" (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993).

A.E. Harvey: It would be no exaggeration to say that this event [the Crucifixtion] is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world" (Jesus and the Constraints of History,"1982).

Morton Smith: "I don't think the arguments from in (Wells) book deserve detailed refutation.....he argues mostly from silence...many of his arguments are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space".

R.J. Hoffmann: "Wells presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels," (Jesus in History and Myth), pp.47-48).

Werner Kummel: "The denial of the existence of Jesus. [is] arbitrary and ill-founded" (The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, p.447, n. 367).

Gunter Bornkamm: "To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all, was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here" (Jesus of Nazareth, p.28).

Van Voorst (referring to the mythicists) states: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely" (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.6).

James Charlesworth: "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism, pp.168-169).

Dominic Crossan: "That Jesus was crucified, is as historically certain as anything could ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p.149?)

Note: Crossan is considered by the liberal school of scholars to be the greatest Jesus historian in the world.

In Conclusion, I can continue to cite scholar after scholar but time and interest do not permit me.

As for the erroneous claim that Jesus must have a contemporary writer about him in order to be real, that claim is so bogus and not even a historical criteria that historians use. Atheists have made that rule up themselves with absolute no authority to do so. At any rate, there are many ancient personages that we accept as historical who did not have contemporary writers. But Jesus did have contemporary writers anyway (the apostles) who were eyewitnesses, so the atheist challenge is rediculous however you look at it.

Lastly, I find it very interesting that evolutionists assert, so they believe, that evolution must be true because allegedly most scientists believe in it. But when it comes to Jesus, and the fact that most scholars and historians believe Jesus existed, the atheists refuse to be consistent with their own criteria. I find this to be a very important contradiction.

However, there are many atheists who do accept the historicity of Jesus.

AL500, your arguements are completely invalid, but instead of accepting that, you turn it back on rook and todangst and say their arguements are worthless.  You need to find hard evidence that anyone will hold as fact, not just the irrational bullshit you've been spurting. 

I think you think that what you have been posting is actual fact, but then again, you have quite the disillusioned point-of-view.  You need to look from our perspective, but you won't, because in your fairytale religion, you would go to hell for even thinking about the non-existence of God.  And this is why it is almost impossible to have a good arguement with a Christian. 

AL500 has clearly made up his mind, before the discussion even began, as most theists have. I don't even know why they even try to discuss these issues in the first place. It's not like he's even trying present an argument whilst also showing what is wrong with his opponents, which is what he should be doing if his disagreement was based on anything. He knows he can't, so all he can do is ignore.

AL500:

In AL500's world...

Rook: <lengthy examination of evidence>

AL500: ROOK'S WRONG!! GOD IS REAL! THERE IS A HISTORICAL JESUS AND HE'S JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS! CRAIG AND BAHNSEN ARE MY HEROES AND THEY SAID SO!

Others: Where is your evidence for this AL? Do you have anything besides Craig and Bahnsen's opinions?

AL500: <crickets chirping>

Later...

AL500: "Excuse me, but I have systematically shredded Rook's arguments..."

I think he did a great job by demonstrating what the sources and scholars are saying.

 He pulverized Rook in the thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." Stick around, I plan to do some pulverizing myself in the near future.