JAK, I take it you refuse to move this to a new thread?
Jesus was not documented at all during his life
Non-existent evidence at the time is not evidence for non-existence at the time. You're reading way too much into this fact as if it means a hill of beans to historians. It doesn't.
Alexander the Great was well documented at the time of his life by the Greeks and had conquered most of the world know to the Greeks. Your example is flawed and a failed parallel to the fact which I observed – namely that Jesus was not documented at all during his life.
You don't have your facts straight. The original biographies of Alexander have all been
lost, and they are known only because they were used by later -
much later - writers. The primary sources for Jesus were written nearer his own lifetime.
Of course you reject the primary sources for Jesus out of hand. Why? Because the Bible has contradictions. Forget textual criticism, let's just throw the baby out with the bath water and declare it all a myth. Sorry buddy, but this isn't how scholars operate. This is how crackpot mythers operate.
If it had be so extraordinary as was claimed in the New Testament accounts, there is every reason to think it would have been documented at the time.
And exactly by whom, would his "history" be written? Christians were driven underground and murdered left and right. It was a cult of martyrs for quite a while. We know there was much written, but didn't survive. But who exactly was going to write about it? The gospels were not intended to be a documented history of Jesus. I mention Tacitus because he was a historian who did mention him. The only historian in the day that could have written about him is Josephus, who in fact does mention him in the year 93: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
“Oral tradition” is unreliable.
Sure, when it comes to getting the details precise. But oral traditions weren't created in vacuums. They are generally based on the teachings of people who really existed.
There was no newspaper, no television, nothing but manuscripts, hand copied by individuals.
Exactly, which flies in teh face of your claim that there is "every reason" to believe a history would have been documented and survived. Most Christians in that day were illiterate and those who weren't were too busy doing missionary work or finding news ways to commit martyrdom. In their minds, teh end times was just right around the corner, even in their lifetime. Christ was vehemently rejected by Judaism as well as the State. The fish symbol was used as a secret symbol for Christians, used by Christians. But it was secret. Why? Because before the 4th century Christians had to operate in secret or else they could be killed. So who in the heck was going to write about him "in his day"?
This is a straw man (an argument against what was never said). I didn’t argue that Roman emperors created the character.
Well I did ask you for clarification. You sure do seem to imply this with your various jabs about how the "The emperors and kings used the God myths to perpetuate themselves."
What exactly are you suggesting here? How would this help prove Christ was a myth?
That “oral tradition” you mention may have created a mythological Jesus.
Oral traditions are not created for no reason. You have not provided any sound reasoning for rejecting the historicity of Christ.
The emperors and kings used the God myths to perpetuate themselves.
What emperors? What myths? You're not being precise. Instead you're hopping around the issue while accusing me of straw men. Just say it how you see it, but follow through with your logic. Which emperors used what myths?
They took the stories and used their scholars (those who could write) to carry forward the myths which were of benefit to them.
Which scholars, which myths? You're being too vague for me to address anything specific.
The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are few. Neither Jews nor Gentiles regarded the oral tradition and the stories as credible at the time.
Which non-Christian sources? First you said there weren't
any sources that referred to the historical Jesus "at the time." Now you're referring to non-Christian sources that allude to the truth of the gospels. Please clarify and expound.
Tacitus was born (circa) 56 A.D. and died (circa) 117 A.D.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that, which is why I mentioned him. The fourth century emperor Constantine was the
first emperor to use Christainity to his advantage. You keep saying things about how emperors used God myths and such, which logically implies Christainity was about an emperor's own ego. I was using Tacitus to prove Constantine could not be to blame here since he predates him by several centuries.
If these dates are even close (and Tacitus was known in the academic circles), any “mention” which he makes is long after the alleged birth, life, and death of Jesus.
From a historical point of view, is still considered substantial evidence in favor of Christ's exietence. Again, you have the vast majority of historians leaning against you here, give or take a few mythers.
So your citing him is no benefit for a claim of a historical Jesus as depicted with precise verbiage in the Bible.
Precise verbiage? That isn't needed to establish historicty. I sense you're already starting to move the goal posts.
But this is why I brought up Alexander the Great. We know plenty about his deeds, but we know very little about his thoughts. The same is not true of Jesus.
Sorry, but ad hominem is no refutation nor defense of your position.
True, but the facts are which is what I chose to rely on.
People today make mistakes of deliberate or accidental occurrence.
This axiom doesn't help your case until you demonstrate that all the primary sources on Jesus were in fact mistakes.
And you offer another straw man attack. No one claimed “Constantine created the Jesus myth.”
Excuse me, but a question isn't a straw man, and I repeat: "What exactly is your full explanation here anyway. That at some point in the fourth century, Constantine created the Jesus myth? When did it start? Why?"
The Jesus myth emerged and evolved before Constantine the Great. As he took to some version of the Christian myth of his day, he also used the religion for his on expansion purposes.
Your problem here is that you have yet to establish is was a myth. Thousands of people don't die over myths that were created only years prior. If you think this is plausible, then I challenge you to provide a parallel example throughout history. You jumped over centuries between Christ and Constantine by declaring it all myth, and you're operating from that unproved premise.
He and particularly his heirs liked the notion of God on our side as a display of power.
Old news. Irrelevant.
Without Constantine, Christianity might well have disappeared as a religion. His status as emperor gave status to Christianity.
This is hogwash. The reason Constantine adopted Christianity was for political purposes. It used it to his advantage as a political tool. Why, if it were a cult dying on a withering vine? It was a striving religion at the time. This in spite of the terrible persecution it endured. There is no reason to think Christianity would have died on its own.
I’m not declaring that the religion would have died out but rather that it would have been more likely to have been marginalized were it not for Constantine and the emperors which followed him and retained Christianity as the state religion.
No, it would have simply taken it much longer to become what it became today.
You’ll have to do better than claim that I sound like someone to refute the analysis.
I don't need to, since historians already find your analysis lacking.
The abandonment of doctrines, truth by assertion is a result of genuine discovery that those doctrines were unreliable or false. That numerous historical scholars regard the biblical accounts with great skepticism is evidence that those biblical accounts are unreliable.
And luckily, biblical scholars differentiate between Old and New Testaments. It isn't honest to refer to the "Bible" in general and expect to be able apply all the scientific fallacies in the Old Testament, as evidence that the New is somehow lacking.
Only so-called Christian scholars remain to defend various doctrines of Christianity.
But scholars of all stripes accept the existence of Jesus. We're not talking about doctrines. We're talking about the historicity of Jesus, remember? Doctrines are not concrete. They are up for grabs as far as understanding and interpretation are concerned, so variations are expected. But the fact is it is fallacious to pretend the tremendous ambiguity of biblical "doctirnes" could somehow be used to test existence of Jesus.
Historians speak of many Christian faith groups teaching conflicting views of Jesus, God, morality, religious obligations, etc. Men and women led house churches. No central authority existed; the congregations were almost completely decentralized.
This is irrelevant. See above.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein