David,

I believe you are being a little disingenuous in your rebuttal to Jim Walker's article. My main problem is your continually reference to the bible, more specifically the gospels, as proof of the existence of Jesus. I will not claim that he didn't exist, although my beliefs lean in that direction. However, the preponderance of the unbiased history does not support his existence. Where most of your arguments may be logically, your insistence on using the gospels to defend the actual existence of Jesus is a bit disingenuous.

Having not read Mr. Walker's article, I will not attempt to defend his points. However, you can not deny that the gospels are biased towards the existence of Jesus. After all, Christianity would not exist without his perceived existence. That bias is the essential difference between accepting "hearsay" accounts of history (ie, the biographies of Alexander The Great) and accepting the existence of Jesus.

Mr. Walker's insistence of an " impossibly high standard" is actually quite common in your "civic" trial example. If party A offers only unbiased "hearsay" testimony and party B offers mostly biased "hearsay" testimony, juries tend to award party A. In order to win, party B would need to offer indisputable evidence.

Your claim that, "Almost all records from that era, over 99%, didn't survive to this day" is a baseless assertion. If you don't know the totality of what didn't survive, how could you arrive at any number? The denominator is undefined, therefore no percentage can be calculated. It would serve you well to not speculate on a claim that can be so easily refuted.

If I had to cast a vote now, I would side with Mr. Walker's claim that Jesus was not an actual person. However, if you can provide some actual evidence, I might change my vote.

Peace be with you,

Ben

"However, the preponderance of the unbiased history does not support his existence."

Actually, yes, it does. Even non-Christians from the first few centuries after Jesus' time acknowledged His existence. We have many non-Christians who wrote about Jesus, many of them arguing against Him as a miracle worker, yet acknowledging that He at least existed. Meanwhile, we have *nobody* from those times arguing that He didn't exist. It would take well over a thousand years before anyone started arguing for Jesus' non-existence.

"However, you can not deny that the gospels are biased towards the existence of Jesus."

Just as those who wrote about Alexander the Great were biased towards the existence of Alexander the Great. Why would Jesus' disciples have been biased towards Jesus' existence if He didn't exist? If Jesus hadn't existed, they would have known it. Have you ever heard of anyone being biased towards a position that they know is false?

"Mr. Walker's insistence of an " impossibly high standard" is actually quite common in your "civic" trial example. If party A offers only unbiased "hearsay" testimony and party B offers mostly biased "hearsay" testimony, juries tend to award party A. In order to win, party B would need to offer indisputable evidence."

And what if Party A offers "hearsay" evidence, and Party B offers no evidence at all? Who do you think would win? Because when it comes to Jesus, *all* evidence, hearsay or not, supports His existence. When it comes to Jesus' non-existence, those arguing for it don't even have hearsay. They have nothing.

"Your claim that, "Almost all records from that era, over 99%, didn't survive to this day" is a baseless assertion. If you don't know the totality of what didn't survive, how could you arrive at any number?"

We know the kinds of things that Romans took records of, since we have references to them. We know that Roman took many censuses of the entire Roman empire. Those censuses no longer exist (in some cases, we have the final tallies, but we don't have the records themselves). We know that Rome issued millions of military pay slips over the course of the empire. Less than a dozen of those slips survive to this day. Ever hear of the "Acta Diurna" ("Daily Acts")? It's a Roman newspaper that ran from about 130 B.C. to about 330 A.D., which contained legal proceedings, public notices, prominent births, marriages, and deaths. We no longer have any copies of it, just references to it. We know that there were many criminal trials in ancient Rome, and that detailed records were made of these trials. Very, very few of these records still exist. True, we don't know the exact number of texts written, but with how few we have 2000 years later, we can safely say that over 99% of what was written didn't survive to this day.

"If I had to cast a vote now, I would side with Mr. Walker's claim that Jesus was not an actual person. However, if you can provide some actual evidence, I might change my vote."

No problem. How about the fact that at least three (probably five) non-Christian historians wrote about Him? How about the fact that even Jesus' early detractors, people like Celsus, Lucius and Mara bar Sarapion, acknowledged that He at least existed? It's not just the religious evidence that points towards Jesus' existence; it's the secular evidence, as well.

David

David,

"Even non-Christians from the first few centuries after Jesus' time acknowledged His existence."

I assume that you are referring to the examples you cited on your web page. That is hardly supporting unbiased information. By the way, claims of Josephus' accounts are still widely disputed. All reference to Jesus may have been inserted later by Christian scribes, possible interpolation.

"Meanwhile, we have *nobody* from those times arguing that He didn't exist."

This is a false argument. Why would there be? After all, the bible was not compiled until the 4th century. Until then, most non-Christian people were not even aware of the supposed life of Jesus. Since most of his contemporaries were not aware of his supposed existence, how could they possibly be expected to refute his existence? Besides, the lack of such an argument does not make the opposite true. So, your point is also irrelevant.

"We have many non-Christians who wrote about Jesus"

Eight (8) non-Christians is hardly many, a few at best. Of them, Josephus is the only one to refer to Jesus by name. Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon, and Pliny the Younger do not mention Jesus by name. The Tacitus and Suetonius claims are a stretch. Even you admit "probably" to Phlegon, which does not rise to the level of definitely. And lastly, Pliny the Younger got his information from Christians, "hearsay" from a biased source. In the end you are left with only one claim by Josephus which may or may not "prove" the existence of Jesus.

"people like Celsus, Lucius and Mara bar Sarapion"

Celsus was writing against Christianity, a reverse bias. His words could be construed as hyperbole.

Lucius of Cyrene was one of the founders of the Christian Church in Antioch of Syria, biased.

Mara bar Sarapion does not mention him by name as he does Socrates and Pythagoras.

"...those who wrote about Alexander the Great were biased..."

This is another false argument. Can you name any scholars that believe that? What are grounds for said bias?

"True, we don't know the exact number" followed by "we can safely say that over 99%..."

You admit not knowing the denominator but feel "safe" to conclude over 99%. That statement could be true. However, you also lack a definitive numerator. And, you don't account for items that are lost but did survive. Again, since this statement does nothing for your argument. You should eliminate such speculation.

Your evidence makes a case. But, it falls short of actual proof. It is also worth mentioning that there were several people that were "wandering the country-side spreading wisdom". I believe that it is just as likely that Jesus is an amalgamation of those people. A personification of a movement in 1st century Judea.

Cheers,

Ben

"I assume that you are referring to the examples you cited on your web page. That is hardly supporting unbiased information."

Do you mean that since they were arguing for Jesus' existence, then they must be biased towards His existence? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Look, if I saw my neighbor murder his wife, and testified against him in trial, you could just argue that I'm "biased towards my neighbor being a murderer". And, yeah, I would be, since I saw him commit a murder with my own eyes. If Jesus never existed, then why were so many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, biased towards His existence? Obviously, the most rational reason would be that He existed. The evidence was strong enough that even those who didn't believe in His resurrected had to admit that He at least lived in the first place.

"By the way, claims of Josephus' accounts are still widely disputed. All reference to Jesus may have been inserted later by Christian scribes, possible interpolation."

The reference in Antiquities 18 was probably at least partially interpolated (though the evidence suggests that someone, probably Eusebius, merely altered what Josephus wrote about Jesus - in other words, Josephus still wrote about Jesus there), but the reference in Antiquities 20 has no evidence of interpolation.

"DAVID: "Meanwhile, we have *nobody* from those times arguing that He didn't exist."

"BEN: This is a false argument. Why would there be? After all, the bible was not compiled until the 4th century. Until then, most non-Christian people were not even aware of the supposed life of Jesus."

While the Bible was first compiled in the 4th century, the writings had been written in the 1st century and were being spread around individually. Christians were quite common in the 1st century AD, enough to become a headache for the Roman Emperors of the 1st and 2nd century. We have the writings of over 100 people from the 1st and 2nd century who wrote about Christ and Christians, including historians and detractors who acknowledged His existence. Jesus was hardly obscure, and His existence wasn't in doubt at the time.

"Since most of his contemporaries were not aware of his supposed existence, how could they possibly be excepted to refute his existence?"

Since many contemporaries had no problem *acknowledging* His existence, they were clearly aware of it.

"Eight (8) non-Christians is hardly many, a few at best."

That's still eight more than we have of non-Christians who denied His existence. In other words, the evidence is firmly in the "Jesus existed" category. You can argue against the evidence for Jesus all you want, but unless you can present some evidence *against* his existence, you must acknowledge that the evidence favors His existence over His non-existence.

"Of them, Josephus is the only one to refer to Jesus by name. Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon, and Pliny the Younger do not mention Jesus by name."

No, but what they wrote about "Christ" (as Jesus was most commonly referred, even by Christians such as Paul) leaves little doubt that they were writing about Him. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia accepts Suetonius as a reference to Jesus, despite his misspelling.

"The Tacitus and Suetonius claims are a stretch. Even you admit "probably" to Phlegon, which does not rise to the level of definitely."

I agree. That's why I said at least three historians (Tacitus is hardly a stretch - he acknowledges that Christ was put to death by Pilate), and "probably" five. Suetonius and Phlegon are the two who probably, though not certainly, wrote about Him. Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny definitely did.

"And lastly, Pliny the Younger got his information from Christians, "hearsay" from a biased source."

Which is still far superior to what we have in the way of evidence against Jesus' existence - which isn't even "hearsay". It's nothing at all. "Hearsay" is still better evidence than nothing.

"Celsus was writing against Christianity, a reverse bias. His words could be construed as hyperbole."

Celsus argued, among other things, that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, and a "mere man". That's pretty clearly an argument which acknowledges Jesus' existence and is not hyperbole. It would be tough to argue that Celsus didn't believe that Jesus existed.

"Lucius of Cyrene was one of the founders of the Christian Church in Antioch of Syria, biased."

My bad. I meant "Lucian", not "Lucius". Lucian was a 2nd-century satirist who acknowledged that Jesus was a man and was crucified.

"Mara bar Sarapion does not mention him by name as he does Socrates and Pythagoras."

No, but historians still agree that he's clearly talking about Jesus.

"DAVID:...those who wrote about Alexander the Great were biased..."

BEN: This is another false argument. Can you name any scholars that believe that? What are grounds for said bias?"

They clearly believed Alexander existed, right? Therefore, they were biased towards him having existed, the same way that the Gospel writers, who clearly believed Jesus existed, were biased towards Him having existed.

"You admit not knowing the denominator but feel "safe" to conclude over 99%. That statement could be true. However, you also lack a definitive numerator."

We don't need it in order to be safe in saying that over 99% of the writings from that day no longer survive. We know a *lot* was written and that not much survives. 99% is a very conservative number.

"And, you don't account for items that are lost but did survive."

By "lost", I mean that they didn't survive.

"Your evidence makes a case. But, it falls short of actual proof."

Fair enough. But since all of the evidence is firmly in the "Jesus existed" category, and none is in the "Jesus didn't exist" category, a rational person is much more likely to conclude that Jesus probably existed, right?

"It is also worth mentioning that there were several people that were "wandering the country-side spreading wisdom". I believe that it is just as likely that Jesus is an amalgamation of those people."

You can believe what you want, but do you have any evidence for that?

David

David,

"Bias - a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective."

"...then they must be biased towards His existence?"

No. Christian's believe in the stories which they believe are attributed Jesus. So, it is not surprising that they would defend their belief in his existence. After all, without his existence, the stories attributed to him could not be defended. In other words, the entire religion needs Jesus to have existed, without his existence there could be no "Christianity". Is their bias clear now? It is not their argument of his existence, it is their faith in words and actions attributed to him.

"...just argue that I'm 'biased towards my neighbor being a murderer'"

Using the aforementioned definition of bias; Your example is weak, unless of course, I believed you disliked your neighbor prior to your claiming that he was a murderer. If I believed you were biased towards your neighbor, your testimony would not carry as much weight, even if your claim was factual. That happens in criminal and civil trials frequently; for having a bias indicates a potential motive for your claims.

"...Christians and non-Christians alike, biased towards His existence?"

Another example of your incorrect understanding of bias. In our discussion, I am stating that Christians are biased by their religious beliefs toward his existence. Further, I am stating that I have no reason to believe that non-Christians are biased. And still further, that anything said about his existence by non-Christians, being presumably unbiased, are worthy of consideration for the "proof" of his existence.

"We have the writings of over 100 people from the 1st and 2nd century who wrote about Christ and Christians, including historians and detractors who acknowledged His existence."

Another example of unnecessary hyperbole. There may be over a hundred people that wrote about Christ and/or Christians. However, that does not necessarily indicate that those people wrote about both. Further, I would suggest that a majority of those wrote exclusively about Christians and their beliefs, not the existence of Jesus.

"...Alexander existed, right? Therefore, they were biased..."

More evidence of your misunderstanding of bias. There is no notion that the historians that wrote about Alexander The Great were not being objective. Without such a claim, no bias can exists.

"many contemporaries had no problem *acknowledging*"

"Contemporary - existing, occurring, or living at the same time"

Again, a few does not make many. By definition, most of your references are not contemporaries. And, those that are have a clear bias.

"a rational person is much more likely to conclude that Jesus probably existed, right?"

Not necessarily. Life is not lived in black and white, yes and no, guilty and not guilty. There are shades of gray, maybe, and hung juries. In this argument, your collection of biased hearsay "evidence" proofing Jesus' existence and my lack of any evidence to the contrary does not necessitate a verdict in your favor. In a trial, a reasonable person could conclude that neither side has proven their case resulting in a "hung" jury. In other words, the debate continues because neither side has proven their case.

"Hearsay is still better evidence than nothing"

Not. Hearsay is not evidence. Hearsay is the regurgitation of someone's claims. That does not prove anything except, maybe, that the author believes the claim. In other words, "hearsay" is not evidence. Additionally, I am not aware of any case where "hearsay" is exclusively used to prove a point.

"We don't need it in order to be safe in saying that over 99%..."

You most certainly do. There is no base to that assertion. Again, just because it MAY be true does not been that it IS true. When you use such hyperbole in your argument, you weaken said argument. So, my advice stands. Your argument is better served by excluding such hyperbole.

"You can believe what you want, but do you have any evidence for that?"

If you don't need true "evidence" to support your belief in Christianity, let alone the existence of Jesus, why do I need evidence for my belief that religion is an extension of ancient myth?

Hoping that mankind will free itself from religious slavery,

Ben

"No. Christian's believe in the stories which they believe are attributed Jesus. So, it is not surprising that they would defend their belief in his existence. After all, without his existence, the stories attributed to him could not be defended. In other words, the entire religion needs Jesus to have existed, without his existence there could be no "Christianity". Is their bias clear now?"

No, since how do you explain all of the people who agreed that Jesus existed, yet weren't Christians? It's not a bias if those who are arguing against it are agreeing on that point.

"DAVID:...just argue that I'm 'biased towards my neighbor being a murderer'"

BEN: Using the aforementioned definition of bias; Your example is weak, unless of course, I believed you disliked your neighbor prior to your claiming that he was a murderer. If I believed you were biased towards your neighbor, your testimony would not carry as much weight, even if your claim was factual. That happens in criminal and civil trials frequently; for having a bias indicates a potential motive for your claims."

And suppose that you have no evidence that I previously disliked my neighbor (just as you have no evidence that Jesus didn't exist). The fact that I'm calling him a murderer would, per your logic, mean that I'm biased towards my neighbor being a murderer.

"Another example of your incorrect understanding of bias. In our discussion, I am stating that Christians are biased by their religious beliefs toward his existence. Further, I am stating that I have no reason to believe that non-Christians are biased. And still further, that anything said about his existence by non-Christians, being presumably unbiased, are worthy of consideration for the "proof" of his existence."

Great, so belief in Jesus' existence has nothing to do with "bias", right? Since it's a point that both Christians and non-Christians agreed upon, it couldn't be a belief that's the result of Christian bias.

"More evidence of your misunderstanding of bias. There is no notion that the historians that wrote about Alexander The Great were not being objective. Without such a claim, no bias can exists."

But it's certainly *possible* that Alexander didn't exist, right? Yeah, all evidence favors His existence, just as all evidence favors Jesus' existence, but it's hypothetically possible that Alexander was some sort of amalgamation of other generals of his day. If so, then the historians who wrote about Alexander *weren't* being objective. Yes, I know it's a ridiculous argument, but it's no more ridiculous than the argument that Jesus didn't exist. There's no evidence for Alexander's non-existence, and no evidence for Jesus' non-existence.

"DAVID:"a rational person is much more likely to conclude that Jesus probably existed, right?"

BEN: Not necessarily. Life is not lived in black and white, yes and no, guilty and not guilty. There are shades of gray, maybe, and hung juries. In this argument, your collection of biased hearsay "evidence" proofing Jesus' existence and my lack of any evidence to the contrary does not necessitate a verdict in your favor. In a trial, a reasonable person could conclude that neither side has proven their case resulting in a "hung" jury. In other words, the debate continues because neither side has proven their case."

Again, we're talking about the preponderance of the evidence here. A complete lack of evidence on one side, and the words of at least three historians, who acknowledged Jesus' existence within the previous century, on the other side is going to convince any rational person that the evidence favors Jesus' existence over His non-existence.

Imagine this - there's a trial where Fred is claiming that he loaned Tom a thousand dollars and Tom never paid it back. Tom is saying that, yes, he borrowed the thousand dollars, but he did pay it back, so he doesn't owe Fred any money. While the repayment of the loan may be in question, the fact that Fred loaned Tom $1000 is not. Would you agree? If both sides are *agreeing* a certain fact, then that fact alone is not in question.

When it comes to the 1st and 2nd century references to Jesus, one side (Christians) was arguing that He was a miracle worker, and the other side (historians and detractors) was arguing that He was a mere man who was crucified, but not a miracle worker. So while Jesus' "miracle worker" status may be in question, the fact that He existed was a point agreed upon by both sides. So as with the above example, while Jesus' "miraculous" status may be in question, the fact that Jesus existed is not.

"If you don't need true "evidence" to support your belief in Christianity, let alone the existence of Jesus, why do I need evidence for my belief that religion is an extension of ancient myth?"

We have evidence for Jesus' existence. It's the same type of evidence we have for almost all facts of ancient history - the words of historians. If we're going to say that historical texts don't count since the authors didn't personally witness those events, then we'd be getting rid of pretty much all of ancient history. But for the idea that Christianity is an extension of earlier stories, there's no evidence to support it. People sometimes *claim* the evidence exists, but it doesn't.

David