Of which 500+ to 700 were combatants and not civilians.

Eventually, some of the followers of this Judean messianic groupscuole split with their comrades over whether, or not to take the political tract out of Judea to convert non-Judean subjects of the Roman Empire as a strategy to defeat Rome. It was during this period that the messiah persona grafted onto the Jesus figure became more than just a divinely inspired political leader of the House of David come to rescue Judeans from their foreign occupation and now with pagans and polytheists as a potential audience became god’s only son raised from the dead. The NT, as so ably argued by Dominic Crossan, was far more a blatant case of prophecy historicized than a case of prophecy becoming history.

For instance – the ritual of Mass and the ingestion of bread and wine (symbolizing body and blood) is a direct import of a Mithraic ritual (called a Myasstra, latinized to Myass) where Mithraists drank win and ate bread symbolizing the body and blood of the Primeveal Bull. The whole “Last Supper” story was a post-hoc construction designed to give a backstory to a borrowed ritual.

You are suggesting that the motives underlying my initial comment constitute some agenda that undermines my impartiality. There is nothing substantial in the paragraph you quote that was not implied in that first comment. Instead of gloating as though you’ve won a major debating point, perhaps you could explain what’s in the paragraph you cite that makes my position suspect.

As I’ve already told you, I reversed my position to one of disbelief in Jesus’ existence after assessing the evidence. However, this is beside the point: judge the veracity of what I’m saying on the basis of my arguments – which you’ve chosen flatly to ignore – rather than on some imagined bias.

The mere fact of the existence of Christianity is by itself *evidence* of the existence of an historical Jesus.

Indeed, this is technically what’s known as rubbish evidence. Or very weak circumstantial evidence.

The default hypothesis must initially be that he existed, since a religion supposedly following a prophet which came into being without such a person ever existing is itself a more extraordinary claim than the converse. In fact I would even characterise it as an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

Such a credulous approach contravenes conventional philosophical and historical methodology, which is that without any evidence in its favour, a proposition should be approached with scepticism. Instead, you argue that if enough people believe a proposition for long enough, the onus is on the sceptic to produce “extraordinary” evidence to the contrary.

It’s reasonable to say that there may be a germ of truth behind some myths, without holding that they’re correct in all their detail and inconsistency: perhaps a great flood inspired the story of Noah. It doesn’t follow that there must also have been a man who lived in a whale.

There is a multitude of possible explanations as to why millions have come to believe in a character named Jesus Christ: citing their belief as proof of his being rather begs the question.

You’ve chosen to ignore all my substantive points; claimed I’m biased without explaining why you think so or how that undermines my arguments; and have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic rules of philosophical and historical investigation. I consider this discussion over unless you can address these shortcomings.

If you are genuinely interested in this subject you could read Mrs. Trellis’ excellent article, or something more comprehensive here. However, it is impossible to prove a negative. If you insist on incontrovertible evidence for Jesus’ non-existence, of course you won’t find it.

Neither will you find any evidence for the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

see http://weblog.nightstudies.net/?p=38

No, I’ll tell you what it will take: the moment criticism of Israeli actions is no longer conflated with the right of Israel to exist (and the right of Israelis to be alive), in that very moment sane discussion of Israeli deeds and misdeeds will be possible and most welcome. Once you and sonic, Atzmon and Ahmenidajad stop preaching the message according to whioh Israel (uniquely to any state in the history of this planet) must be punished for its actions by denial of its existence.

So let’s stop this hypocracy.

Which of course does not mean that it was not embellished and even full of falsehoods (as indeed the present accounts of the life of Rael or L Ron Hubbard are no doubt embellished and full of falsehoods, as are the accounts of Muhammed or Moses or Buddha (miracles included)).

In any case, arguing over the number of refugees reminds of another argument concerning numbers…hint hint…

Posted by Chris Voidis at December 14, 2006 01:53 AM

Lies, lies, and more damn lies!

See The Big Arab Lie

Don’t miss the chapter on The Jewish Refugees and see also Pierre Rehov’s Silent Exodus and Hostages of Hatred.

http://mrstrellis.cream.org/?p=87

I consider the myth of the historical Jesus to be one of the best PR stunts, ever. When I was an RE teacher, all my textbooks swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and so did I. The evidence is sketchy at best, falsified at worst.

There is no more reason for an atheist, Jew or Zoroastrian to accept the existence of Jesus than there is for them to accept the existence of Krishna, Thor, Zeus or indeed fairies at the bottom of the garden.