Top Five most influential

[Endre Fodstad]

The vast majority of historians - religious or atheist - working on the period acknowledge that Jesus is probably the best documented historical figure under the rank of procurator in the roman empire. That there are few direct references to him is hardly surprising - from the literate classes in Judea in his day, he wasn't a problem after he was executed - especially not considering all soon-to-follow revolts against roman rule. Notwithstanding that the Jesus myth hypothesis is an argumentum ex silencio that basically "cheats" - refusing to accept sources of christian origin or "christian doctoring" (a literary merry-go-round of creative interpretation to search those out, no mistake!) of non-christian sources. It is also rather striking that later roman sources hostile to christianity at no point attempt to discredit the religion based on its founder being an invention - which they probably would have had the available sources to find out - they certainly tried all other methods.

Overall, considering the small amount of sources from around 30 AD/CE/Whatever's your poison that have survived down to us, you have to have  a solid axe to grind to subscribe to the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Of course, grindable axes abound, especially in Britain and the US, for some reason.

 

[Tangent]

If he existed, Jesus was just a trumped-up Hebrew witch doctor. However, itis irrelevent since most of the core Christian dogma was set down centuries later by power- and cash-hungry priests, bishops and popes. Jesus and his followers did nothing except start the process.

The argument against Christianity is not that Jesus didn't exist, but that the religion itself is crude, barbarous, intolerant, and based on malicious lies and trickery.

Of course, this is the argument against all religion, not just Christianity.

 

[Emperor_Danny]

Rock-influencial

1) Jimmy Heandrix
2) Leo Feder
3) Agnus Young
4) The beatles
5) myself, when palying hard rock!

$) [money add] -

 

[Æon]

The argument against Christianity is not that Jesus didn't exist, but that the religion itself is crude, barbarous, intolerant

How is "Love thy neighbor and enemies" barbarous?

 

[MountainBlade]

Notwithstanding that the Jesus myth hypothesis is an argumentum ex silencio that basically "cheats" - refusing to accept sources of christian origin or "christian doctoring" (a literary merry-go-round of creative interpretation to search those out, no mistake!) of non-christian sources.

How is it cheating to consider the bias of your sources?

If he existed, Jesus was just a trumped-up Hebrew witch doctor. However, itis irrelevent since most of the core Christian dogma was set down centuries later

Exactly.

How is "Love thy neighbor and enemies" barbarous?

That's not all there is to it. For one, unless you're a gnostic or believe in Marcion's interpretation, the god you worship is the same one as in the OT. Also, according to Christian doctrine, you are saved by believing in Jesus. Good people who aren't Christians don't go to heaven.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

How is it cheating to consider the bias of your sources?

Source criticism is always a good idea. Blanket condemnation of a source as biased with no regards to the source criticiism performed on it earlier to determine its veracity is just ignorant. The bible is used as a source by historians on non-religious matters as well, and source criticism has been performed on it since its inception - especially stringent criticism since the late 18th century.

The authenticity  of the entire text of Josephus, for example, has been discussed for over half a millenium. Of the two passages mentioning Jesus, the longer one is regarded as not having survived as 100% what he originally wrote - which is not uncommon in his works, changes have been made over time even though the copyists have been remarkably faithful - but not necessarily regarded as a complete fabrication either. The other passage, where he mentions the execution of Jesus' brother Jacob, is acknowledged as "undoctored". Some claim it has been changed as well, but there is nothing in the language or context that indicates this, as far as I know.

Earlier, the Jesus Mythers would point to the "doctored Josephus" and triumphantly declare that all his mentions of Jesus are later additions. With the second passage, this has turned to "there is no mention of Jesus in other romans sources" and a blanket condemnation of the bible as source. Considering how many historical details and characters from the ancient word only appear in one source with less detail than that Josephus gives on Jesus, it is surprising that one source was close enough to Jesus geographically and chronologically in addition to consider him important enough to mention at all. To me, that starts smacking of blind ideology attempting to masquerade as science when one resorts to ad hoc hypotheses like these; a rabid-atheist version of what those rabid-christian (and other religions, for that matter) creationists have been cooking up these last few decades, and just as invalid.

 

[MountainBlade]

The bible is used as a source by historians on non-religious matters as well

I don't see anything strange about that.  I agree that it's wrong to disregard it all together, but the bible obviously has a bias on the matter of Jesus so it's more suspect on that topic than on topics on which it is more neutral.

To me, that starts smacking of blind ideology attempting to masquerade as science when one resorts to ad hoc hypotheses like these;

I see what you're saying. I wish I had more to add but I don't know enough about the specifics here. All I can say is that conducting research with a pre-determined conclusion is the worst kind of non-science.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I think it is a bad idea to assume that the Bible is really biased about the existence of Jesus. More like, it doesn't really consider the option that he could have been fictional - and neither does the non-christian ancient sources discussion christianity. The Bible's depiction of Jesus, on the other hand, is something else entirely. One can, and should, be skeptical and critical about it - as most scholars studying it, from a religious perspective or not, have been since it was first written down; the vast amounts of apocrypha are proof of that (if a lot of them were discarded for religio-political reasons). It is the straight out blanket dismissal of it as a source that grates on my nerves.

Predetermined conclusions are quite common in ethical, philosophical and religions debates - most philosophers, after all, have already made up their minds on a subject when they publish their end thesis. It has also been used by debaters - the falsified Donation of Constantine is a fine example from the Catholic side: its purpose was to give the early papal states a better legal right to its territory, Letronne (and Irving)'s invention of the Flat Earth Myth - the idea that religious catholic scholars in the middle ages had held to the belief that the earth was flat: its purpose to be used as an all-purpose hammer for the anti-christian debate side in Conflict thesis debates, an excellent example of atheists committing the same error. Modern Creationism is also a splendid example.

Overall, in some fields, I advise a lot of skepticism, even if the results support a view you yourself favor.

 

[Gallus Domesticus]

Most influencial human:

1.whoever wrote the torah
2.whoever wrote the bible
3.whoever wrote the quran
4.Buddha
5.The first Homo Sapien

 

[Archonsod]

The authenticity  of the entire text of Josephus, for example, has been discussed for over half a millenium. Of the two passages mentioning Jesus, the longer one is regarded as not having survived as 100% what he originally wrote - which is not uncommon in his works, changes have been made over time even though the copyists have been remarkably faithful - but not necessarily regarded as a complete fabrication either.

Eusebius pretty much openly admitted to fabricating Josephus, in fact he seemed quite pleased with it. Also note we have two works of Josephus, of which only Antiquities of the Jews mentions Jesus. The key problem with these passages in particular is that it isn't until Eusebius that anyone actually mentions them, and given there was 200 years of commentary from multiple sources on the work it seems strange none of them appear to have heard of them, particularly given most were involved in this self same debate (or the whole physical / spiritual being argument). It's not the only work Eusebius doctored either, he seemed to make something of a habit of it (though to be fair, most of it had more to do with unifying the early church than it did pushing a particular viewpoint).

It is the straight out blanket dismissal of it as a source that grates on my nerves.

It's not really a good historical source. A lot of the places it mentions either didn't exist or wouldn't have been around at the time it claims to portray which we can corroborate with other sources or even hard archaeological evidence; similarly there are events which can't be corroborated even if we would expect them to be (particularly regarding the Egyptians for some reason). As a historical source it's next to useless; unless you can corroborate a source then it should be discarded, and in the Bible's case the events which it can corroborate are invariably covered in far better detail from other sources. It's value outside of religion is more anthropological than historical.

 

[alpinelegend]

Jeremy Clarkson

 

[Cirdan]

Most influencial human:

1.whoever wrote the torah
2.whoever wrote the bible
3.whoever wrote the quran
4.Buddha
5.The first Homo Sapien

But the Bible--and more so the Torah--has had multiple authors and a host of editors. The Qur'an can claim a single author, but since it was only compiled a generation after the author's death, it has been edited--although, since it was compiled from a coherent series of notes taken on the the author's oral teachings, one can hold that the number of editors was quite small (and that it is closer to the original teaching than the Bible).

 

[Untitled.]

2.whoever wrote the bible

It says God doesn't count...

 

[Cirdan]

2.whoever wrote the bible

It says God doesn't count...

But no-one ever claimed the Bible was written by God. The New Testament was written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse, some of the Epistles), Paul (most of the Epistles), Peter (two Epistles), Jude and James (one Epistle each), plus the anonymous author of the Apostle to the Hebrews. The Jewish Bible is the work of various Jewish priests, who recorded the stories of their prophets, plus Psalms and various other stuff about the Jews, their religion and history.

The Qur'an comes closer to this, since supposedly it is a compilation of what people wrote down of Muhammad's teachings, which Muhammad claimed to have received from the angel Jibril (a.k.a. Gabriel) who claimed to have received them from God. Muslims believe this has not altered God's teachings; everyone else is rather more skeptical.

 

[Untitled.]

2.whoever wrote the bible

It says God doesn't count...

But no-one ever claimed the Bible was written by God. The New Testament was written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse, some of the Epistles), Paul (most of the Epistles), Peter (two Epistles), Jude and James (one Epistle each), plus the anonymous author of the Apostle to the Hebrews. The Jewish Bible is the work of various Jewish priests, who recorded the stories of their prophets, plus Psalms and various other stuff about the Jews, their religion and history.

But it is Gods word.
Means they only wrote it, God came up with it

 

[Tangent]

But it is Gods word.
Means they only wrote it, God came up with it

If you come up with proof - sure, I'll believe that.

But you won't. The fact is that everything ever written was written by living, breathing human beings, working either with their own ideas or ideas they've borrowed/adapted from other living, breathing human beings.

 

[Emperor_Danny]

Maybe, It is as you said, but maybe not. Can you proove the oposite?     

I mean can you proove me that God doesn't exist?

 

[Palos]

1. The man who back in Paleolithic tried to make a joke by hitting the head of his fellow tribesman repeatedly over a big chunk of flint and thus igniting the nearby tents with the help of the sparks
2. Johannes Gutenberg
3. Alexander the Great
4. Archimedes
5. Bill Gates

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Maybe, It is as you said, but maybe not. Can you proove the oposite?     

I mean can you proove me that God doesn't exist?

The burden of proof lies with the claiment, if you claim something exists, you have to prove it, not get everyone to prove they don't. Imagine how easy it would be for scientists then.

Leeuwenhoek: I have discovered organisms invisible to the naked eye!
English Royal Society: Astounding! Can you prove it?
Leeuwenhoek: Hey, suck my ****, you prove me wrong!
English Royal Society: Damn!

 

[Emperor_Danny]

Maybe, It is as you said, but maybe not. Can you proove the oposite?     

I mean can you proove me that God doesn't exist?

The burden of proof lies with the claiment, if you claim something exists, you have to prove it, not get everyone to prove they don't. Imagine how easy it would be for scientists then.

Leeuwenhoek: I have discovered organisms invisible to the naked eye!
English Royal Society: Astounding! Can you prove it?
Leeuwenhoek: Hey, suck my ****, you prove me wrong!
English Royal Society: Damn!

I agree with you. If you claim that no god exists you HAVE TO proove it. Actually nobody can proove either opinion so... Maybe in future we will learn!