OK,

Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Babylonian Talmud
Lucian
Celus
Suetonius

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
OK,

Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Josephus
Babylonian Talmud
Lucian
Celus
Suetonius

Please provide me with the relevant quotes.

Thats rather lazy, use google search for starters and then theres amazon.

All of those classical writers lived after the date of the supposed death of Jesus and therefore according to the rules of evidence their testimony is only hearsay and is therefore no evidence at all.
There are no contemporary writings by anyone who witnessed first hand any event in the life of the supposed Jesus.
As far as the Babylonian Talmud is concerned this was written anywhere between the 3rd and 6th CE and therefore is not inadmissable.
There frankly is no evidence at all that he ever existed.There is as much evidence for the existence of Hercules than Jesus of Nazareth,which town by the way did not exist in the first century.

What "rules of evidence" are these? The ones you just made up? If we followed them all the evidence we have for a number of historical characters would have to be discarded.

As far as this discussion is concerned they would've known who Julius Caeser was and they would've Known who Jesus Christ was and would not have confused the two. Thus the answer to the question at the top of this thread is No. Definately not.

Oh and if Nazareth did not exist in the first century who built this:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1067930,00.html

Also:-

http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
What "rules of evidence" are these? The ones you just made up? If we followed them all the evidence we have for a number of historical characters would have to be discarded.

As far as this discussion is concerned they would've known who Julius Caeser was and they would've Known who Jesus Christ was and would not have confused the two. Thus the answer to the question at the top of this thread is No. Definately not.

Are you calling me a liar?
The rules of evidence would require the testimonies of those writers to have been accounts of first hand witnesses.None of those classical writers ever met Jesus or even were alive when he was supposed to have been.Therefore whatever accounts they published have to be regarded as hearsay.Hearsay is not evidence and any reputable historian would have to conclude that if the only "evidence" of a person`s existence was hearsay then it cannot be proved that the person existed.Yet when we talk about "Jesus of Nazareth" these usual considerations fly out of the window.Why is that do you think?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fil2:
Oh and if Nazareth did not exist in the first century who built this:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1067930,00.html

Another money making scam.Jesus is big bucks.There is no evidence outside of the New Testament that Nazareth existed in the first century CE.The earliest date that can be assumed is 135CE.The existence of a Roman bath house proves nothing either way.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Thats rather lazy, use google search for starters and then theres amazon.

He who makes the statement or sets the argument should provide the supporting evidence.It is not for the opposing side to prove the case for him.

You started the case stating there was no evidence what so ever.

Fil2 has gone one step further by supplying plenty of names and some links.

So my point was more in the line of this, you don't agree with anything to counter your flippant statement and will find any excuse to aviod the possibility of the fact that the Nazerene excisted?

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
You started the case stating there was no evidence what so ever.

Fil2 has gone one step further by supplying plenty of names and some links.

So my point was more in the line of this, you don't agree with anything to counter your flippant statement and will find any excuse to aviod the possibility of the fact that the Nazerene excisted?

It is not sufficient to make a religious statement that Jesus existed and then expect people with a modicum of intelligence to believe it.If you are saying that Jesus existed then it is your responsibility to prove it,not mine to disprove it.
The classical sources that were already stated are not evidence.None of those writers were alive when Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth and so they are not first hand witnesses.
There are no accounts in existence of first hand witnesses.The gospels themselves are of unknown authorship,not written in the first person and written many years after the death of the supposed Jesus.They also contradict one another in many crucial places.
Jesus himself left no writing or artefacts.
There is no more proof that Jesus lived than any demi god in Greek mythology yet you require me to believe it so.
Why are you requiring that the burden of proof be lessened for Jesus and that I should suspend judegement and just "believe"? Are you an evangelist?

Well its kind of a stale mate then. Using your canon, it can't really be conclusive.

Stating he definatly didn't excist as you have done is invalide.

Your last line is bascially sounding like that of a secularist evangelist, are you that.

If I am making an assumption then it is equal to your assumption of me.

Have a fine day stewing in your mal content

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Well its kind of a stale mate then. Using your canon, it can't really be conclusive.

Stating he definatly didn't excist as you have done is invalide.

Your last line is bascially sounding like that of a secularist evangelist, are you that.

If I am making an assumption then it is equal to your assumption of me.

You expect me to believe in the literal physical existence of a mythological figure,a mythological figure that is I may say the construct of many earlier European sun gods.See "Aryan sun-myths the origin of Religion" by Charles Morris.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Have a fine day stewing in your mal content

And may you have a nice day banging that xtian tambourine of yours.By the way the word you are struggling for is malcontent.

Wow, you stuck those two words together, its a miracle.

At least I didn't spell mal with two l's, be thankful for small mercies

At least I won't be banging my tawger

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Banging one's tawger

Thank you for your intelligent and constructive input.

Pleasure,
I'm always here to awaken ones inner child