Is it?

Bart being anti-theist has no bearing on my point. We were talking about how he views Jesus the man — Tom Storm

Yes, that's true and it's why I posted a correction on him. I have not heard him state that he believes that the Jesus Christ described in the bible, never existed. He may well have been based on a human teacher-like character. As you say, many people think so, Including many atheists.
There is no proof however. I have no problem with Jesus the man, the teacher, even the mystic whose life was used as the base mold for the Jesus portrayed in the gospels but none of the supernatural piffle happened and the majority, if not all of the narratives he spoke in the gospels were invented by others.
I am sure there were thousands of people called Jesus during the time, the version in the gospels is placed, some of whom may well have been teachers of some repute.

Christians should put their money where their mouth is, or be made to do so.
So they say they are sooo speshal and they have the most powerful entity in the Universe on their side and they will go to heaven, happy forever, while the rest of us will suffer in hell, doomed. Okay then, if God is with them, who can be against them, right?

It is unfortunate that a discussion of the historical sources and influences that shaped the writings of the Bible and its various interpretations is regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these matters. While there is disagreement, which sometimes gets heated, many of the scholars, on all sides of an issue, consider themselves religious. That they agree with those who consider themselves agnostic or atheist should give us pause. — Fooloso4

What is regarded as hateful, rightly so in my atheist opinion, is the Jesus myth theory -- or absence of theory to be precise, see below. It is a set of conspiracy theories not based on facts. So what are they based on?

What are semi-obsessive conspiracy theories usually based on, if not some form of irrational hatred or another? This is what I see here in @universeness: a prejudice.

Almost all scholars specialist of the era -- believers and non believers alike -- agree that it is far more probable that an actual historical predicator called Yeshua was at the onset of the stories written about "Jesus Christ", than otherwise.

And what is this "otherwise"? What is the mythicist theory of what actually happened at the onset of what will later be called the Christian era? Who (according to the mythicists) invented the Jesus myth, and wrote the Gospels and the Acts out of sheer imagination?

To me, that's where the debate becomes really interesting. What's the rival theory?

Mythicists often don't have one, and when they do, they don't agree with one another. And no particular candidate for authorship can withstand analysis. Why, the Gospels are diverse, contradicting each other. They are embarrassing for Jesus in many ways, not least in showing him executed by the state like a criminal. Stylistically, they are written in shabby Greek laden here and there with Aramean. None of the obvious suspects, generally reputed Greek writers, could reasonably have authored something as crude and foreign (from their viewpoint) as a synoptic gospel...

Jesus is not so easily buried.

I’m not sure what your point is. All I know is Fight Fire With Fire is a Kansas song.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth — Noble Dust

Again, I don't accept that I am doing what you suggest. I am airing and exemplifying work done by individuals who are well qualified in the field and have researched the area and absolutely disagree with the claims made by Christian theists. I don't think your annoyance level should interfere with other people being allowed to hear rebuttals against the Christian claims.

I don't normally use AD and prefer BCE but based on the above, they may well have been contemporaries. — universeness

They may have been. As I said, though, I don't see Tacitus relying on any work by Josephus for the little he (Tacitus) writes about the person known as Christus. Why would he? He wasn't particularly fond of any emperor, and certainly not Domitian or the Flavians in general. I doubt he'd look to their favorite as a source.

I haven't read Atwill. Those Alexandrians certainly were a busy bunch, weren't they? Both Jews and Greeks.

Dorothy enters the shabby dining room of the Catholic Worker House of Hospitality in a full-skirted pastel dress with cuffed short sleeves singing Que Sera Sera. — Bitter Crank

I can picture it! Imagine Rock Hudson working there when she arrives.

or be made to do so. — baker

I wonder what his means.

So my main focus for this thread has been Jesus. — universeness

Okay so you've been addressing the paucity of evidence in favour of Moses' historicity on some other thread. Understood.

the influence of Christianity on Western Culture and the actions it performed 'in the name of' has been devastating. — universeness

Really? How do you know that those very same crimes wouldn't have been committed in the name of Jupiter or some other god, had not the Jesus character been invented by Josephus as you claim?

Stalin did not need a god to kill millions. Attila was not a saint either...

They may have been. As I said, though, I don't see Tacitus relying on any work by Josephus for the little he (Tacitus) writes about the person known as Christus. Why would he? He wasn't particularly fond of any emperor, and certainly not Domitian or the Flavians in general. I doubt he'd look to their favorite as a source.

I haven't read Atwill. Those Alexandrians certainly were a busy bunch, weren't they? Both Jews and Greeks — Ciceronianus

Maybe, I think knowing the mind of Tacitus or what his motivations were or why he did this or that can only be pure conjecture. But in the absence of proof, all we can do is turn to our own interpretation/opinion based on what we do know or have read about. Hopefully we remain willing to change position when any new stronger evidence is discovered and we don't simply ossify on even deeply held and treasured belief.

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. It has happened to me. Ehrman has been mentioned a few times. He has been slandered by some who are made uncomfortable by him. The situation is analogous to politics, where you have to be clearly with us or against us. I have been criticised for being and atheist and criticised for being a theist. It seems as though a decision is made as to which side you are on and what you say is the evaluated in that light.

You yourself don't embrace the relativism that you espouse. — baker

A degree of interpretive freedom is not necessarily relativism.

Christianity prior to the hegemony of the Church Fathers was without official doctrines. It was an "inspired" (the indwelling of spirit) religion. But even the attempt to establish the inalterable truth met with change from the very beginning. Rather than "the rock" on which the Church was built, it has been shifting sand. — Fooloso4

It was a mess, or stew, certainly. It's unfortunate it turned out as it did. I like to speculate how Christianity would have turned out if, for example, the Arian view had triumphed, or if Pelagius had been preferred over Augustine. Possibly, much of the effort spent in trying to treat Jesus as one in being with the Father may have been avoided. I think the acceptance of that belief is one of the reasons it became so difficult to accept the Jesus of the Gospels.

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. — Fooloso4

That's why they say that one shouldn't talk about religion and politics in polite society. Add philosophy to that.
If you want polite society, ditch talk of religion, politics, and philosophy.

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately.

A degree of interpretive freedom is not necessarily relativism. — Wayfarer

You granted me no such freedom.

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately. — Ciceronianus

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too.

Really? How do you know that those very same crimes wouldn't have been committed in the name of Jupiter or some other god, had not the Jesus character been invented by Josephus as you claim? — Olivier5

I cant and if what you suggest was actually the case then I would be discussing the crimes humans have commited, in the name of 'Jupiter or some other god,' and I would still be advocating that the human race has to rid itself of such fables.
I did not claim the Jesus character was invented by Josephus alone.

Stalin did not need a god to kill millions. Attila was not a saint either... — Olivier5

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that I complain about those slaughtered in the name of God does not mean I excuse non-theistic reasons for slaughtering millions of people either. It's a bizarre projection to suggest.

:up:

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too. — baker

Well, there's a lot I'd like to know that I think can't be recovered, so it may be just my own frustration and disappointment. I'd like to know better what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed."

A distinction should be made between the myth (in the modern sense of falsehood) that Jesus ever existed and the myth (in the ancient sense of a story with meaning and significance that goes beyond what is evident in bare facts). I see no reason to question the existence of Jesus but many reasons to question the existence of "the Christ".

Isn’t the point of ridding the human race of religious “fables” presumably to eradicate the types of suffering and injustice they’ve caused? Why pursue this when non-religious institutions result in the same atrocities? It’s no bizarre projection.

What do you think things may have looked like? In what ways do you think things might have been different?

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that I complain about those slaughtered in the name of God does not mean I excuse non-theistic reasons for slaughtering millions of people either. It's a bizarre projection to suggest. — universeness

The point of bringing in Stalin and Attila was to show that man never needed a theological excuse to kill man. Atheist regimes such as China are not less brutal than theocracies. Whether a god or another or none altogether is invoked by the murderers makes no difference to their victims.

I see no reason to question the existence of Jesus but many reasons to question the existence of "the Christ". — Fooloso4

Why of course. And that is a more interesting question about history, than the existence of Jesus. The question being (among others), how do you make a god out of a man, who most probably never ever wanted to be seen as a god?

Isn’t the point of ridding the human race of religious “fables” presumably to eradicate the types of suffering and injustice they’ve caused? Why pursue this when non-religious institutions result in the same atrocities? It’s no bizarre projection — Noble Dust

So are you saying that you just can't conceive of a society built and maintained by human beings within which millions of people are not slaughtered in the name of theistic doctrines or non-theistic dictatorial/totalitarian/aristocratic/monarchistic/autocratic systems?
If you do hold such dystopian views and see no hope for the future of the human race then you might just as well count yourself amongst the antinatalists.
I hope you do have hope for a better future for us.

I’m saying none of that.

The point of bringing in Stalin and Attila was to show that man never needed a theological excuse to kill man. Atheist regimes such as China are not less brutal than theocracies. — Olivier5

So let's campaign against both and advocate for something better!

I’m saying none of that — Noble Dust

Well, I suppose there is some use in knowing what you are not saying.