Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[viper37]

It is the same problem for both Mohammad and Jesus.  Their existence is known only from the sacred religious texts which founds the religion in their name.  The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.  At least Islam can take some comfort in the fact that Mohammad did not come from a society which had the same degree of literacy.

that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period.  I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.

Rather than go at length, I'm gonna give you the link to Wikipedia on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Existence

There is a huge difference between accepting an historical character and accepting without proof (or plausability) every action he is supposed to have taken.

I could, for example, accept that there was a "British" king at some point following the Roman Withdrawal of the provinces who united the people and fought against some invader without believing in a magical sword and a powerful court wizard by the name of Merlin.

Such stories aren't unheard of.  A leader rises somewhere to fight against an invader and manages to beat them for a while.

[dps]

There is a huge difference between accepting an historical character and accepting without proof (or plausability) every action he is supposed to have taken.

I agree.  The fact that the story of George Washington and the cherry tree is considered fictional by almost everyone with a decent education doesn't mean that George Washington didn't exist.

The problem is that in this thread, crazy canuck seems to be coming dangerously close to arguing that since Mohammed didn't do everything that he is purported to have done, then Mohammed didn't actually exist (and I think I can state with a reasonable degree of confidence that none of us think that he did do everything that he is purported to have done, because I don't see how you could believe that and not become a Moslem--and none of our current posters are Moslems AFAIK).

[Razgovory]

You could make arguments that none of these people exist.

No, I couldn't.  And the fact you are making this strawman argument shows a lack of understanding of the point I am making 

Okay, let me rephrase that.  People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).

[crazy canuck]

It is the same problem for both Mohammad and Jesus.  Their existence is known only from the sacred religious texts which founds the religion in their name.  The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.  At least Islam can take some comfort in the fact that Mohammad did not come from a society which had the same degree of literacy.

that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period.  I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.

It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived.  But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities.  Yet no record exists.  There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief.  There were many similar.  But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.

[crazy canuck]

You could make arguments that none of these people exist.

No, I couldn't.  And the fact you are making this strawman argument shows a lack of understanding of the point I am making 

Okay, let me rephrase that.  People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).

If they did they wouldn't be very knowledgeable now would they.  Didn't take you long to get to the personal attacks did it 

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society. 

I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time.  The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail.  To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated.  But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.

[grumbler]

The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society. 

I wouldn't call the Galilee "highly literate" at the time.  The evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually pretty decent; applying a higher standard I think fairly leads to Raz's critique that lots of historical figures whose existence was generally accepted would fail.  To be clear it certainly can be questioned whether Jesus did all the things attributed to them in the Gospels (literally impossible given the contradictions) and thus it could be said that the existence of the "Jesus of the Bible" cannot be demonstrated.  But denial of the existence of any historical Jesus is, IMO, not a very strong argument.

I'd argue that insistence on the existence of any historical Jesus is equally not a strong argument.

Of the existence of a Mohammed, leader of the Arabs around 630 CE, there doesn't seem to be any question.  There are contemporaneous records of his existence.  He isn't a figure like Arthur or Jesus that has to be explained away as just falling through the cracks of an imperfect historical record.  As far as him being a prophet or the founder of a new religion, yeah, that's certainly debatable.  But he can't be conflated with otherwise-mythological figures like Roland and whatnot simply because he has had legends grow up about him.

Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).

[Razgovory]

Why would it be insane to doubt the historicity of a figure if you have evidence to support your case exactly? Why is all of history dependent on Atilla the Hun existing?

All pre-modern history is based on accepting the sort of records CC pretends to be highly skeptical of.  If one were to apply the sort of criticism to the rest history that CC applies figures in extant religions then history, particularly ancient history, rapidly becomes devoid of people and events.  To apply this sort of criticism in a biased way (at Muhammad but not Spartacus), is either hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant.  Because he caught on about Roland, but not about the others then I think he's simply ignorant.  The sad truth is that most historical personages do not have photo IDs.  The people we accept as real have remarkably little primary sources to back them up.  Our knowledge of say a Roman Emperor's reign may rely on only two or three sources which disagree.  This is pretty standard.

[The Minsky Moment]

Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).

Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels.  Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it.  (BTW "son of god" was a contemporary designation of a messianic or Davidic claim and not a literal son-ship).  Claims to messianic status were probably not unusual in the period and would not necessarily attract massive attention and comment.

[Razgovory]

It is the same problem for both Mohammad and Jesus.  Their existence is known only from the sacred religious texts which founds the religion in their name.  The problem for Jesus is more acute because he is said to have existed in the context of a highly literate society.  At least Islam can take some comfort in the fact that Mohammad did not come from a society which had the same degree of literacy.

that would be a valid argument for the existence of Jesus if we could trace every single individual who existed in that time period.  I don't think we have record for every execution either, especially in a Roman protectorate.

It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived.  But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities.  Yet no record exists.  There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief.  There were many similar.  But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.

You vastly overstate the historical record.  And I think this the source of your misunderstanding.  The names and actions of Roman Governors are lost.  Large scale rebellions are sometimes mention only by one person.  It is likely that there are rebellions that are simply forgotten.  There aren't exactly a lot of extant Roman tax rolls sitting around but presumably Romans collected taxes. 

Prior to an archeological find the existence of Pontius Pilate is not as well attested to as Jesus of Nazareth.  He's mentioned off handed by a few historians and mentioned in the bible but beyond that, nothing.  There is no tax role, or edict, or marriage certificate, or recall notice, or private letter or anything.  That's just the way history is from that period.  You have very little to go on.

[Razgovory]

You could make arguments that none of these people exist.

No, I couldn't.  And the fact you are making this strawman argument shows a lack of understanding of the point I am making 

Okay, let me rephrase that.  People more knowledgeable then you could make arguments that none of these people exist (except for Champlain, I threw him in for a laugh).

If they did they wouldn't be very knowledgeable now would they.  Didn't take you long to get to the personal attacks did it 

After 100 posts in this thread with you continuously dodging questions and promoting fringe theories then sometimes a bit more direct approach is required.

[grumbler]

Jesus did not claim divine status in the synoptic gospels.  Without getting deep into the detail, bottom line is that his followers appear to have claimed that he was the Jewish Messiah and that Jesus either was ambiguous about the claim or did not discourage it. 

Or he was safely dead and/or the fact that he didn't exist was safely forgotten by the time such claims were made.

Given the non-centrality of Jesus to Christianity, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much the Jesus himself may not have existed.  I don't think you can quite say that about Muhammad.

[viper37]

It is true that we don't have a record of every peasant who lived.  But this is someone who it is claimed drew thousands to come hear him and who was well known to the authorities.  Yet no record exists.  There may well have been a Rabbi named Jesus who did teach a particular interpretation of Jewish belief.  There were many similar.  But that is something quite different from what is described in what became the New Testament.

he was considered heretic, and he was excuted for that.  We don't have a record of every single heretic executed during the middle ages, or even during the Inquistion much later on.

We're talking of a place in perpetual conflict since the time of his assumed existence.  Romans vs Parthians, Byzantines vs Persians, various civil wars&independance movement, muslim conquest, crusades, re-conquests, near-abandonment of the area at some point during Ottoman rule, re-settling by Jews and Arabs closer to our time and since then perpetual conflict.

I'm not surprised an heretic wasn't given more than a footnote among other preaching rabbis of the time.  And to the Romans, he was about the same as a common thief, again no surprise there.

What purpose would talking of this weird jewish sect on the rise serve the Romans?  Did they accomplish a huge military victory that could be inflated for political purpose by a tribune?  Not really... just one guy, preaching to the mass, like others, but this one possibly a little too unorthodox and he got wacked at the first occasion the joint rulers of the land found.

And I've bolded the part where we are in agreement: As I said, I believe there was a Jesus guy sometime around 0-33, but that doesn't mean I believe eveything that was written about him.  That is a huge difference and totally not the same thing.

[viper37]

Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).

the original Gospels don't even mention hi resurection after 3 days...  IIRC, one of the actual Gospel, in its original form, simply stopped at his death, the rest was added later.

[Razgovory]

Jesus may well have been Some Dude in Palestine around the turn of the zeroeth millennium, but he kept himself well-hidden from his contemporaries if he was the Son of God (though, who'd blame him, what with all the splitters?).

the original Gospels don't even mention hi resurection after 3 days...  IIRC, one of the actual Gospel, in its original form, simply stopped at his death, the rest was added later.

Close.  The Gospel of Marc ends right after the resurrection.  They find an empty tomb then freak out.