"The gospels are full of other lies, too."

That is based on your extremely biased POV.  You could not demonstrate that it was full of 'other lies' based on anything objective.

"How is it supposed to convince anyone that jesus ever lived?"

Ah, yes.  Of course, the Christian community exploded into existence from WITHIN the Jewish community and there was nothing to cause it- a pack of lies based on a non-existent man?  If that is your view, that suggests to me that Jewish people are pathetically stupid and guillible, and for that reason we ought not believe them either about Moses, the Law, or anything else- that is to say, if they were stupid enough to believe in the lies of a non-existent man, they were probably stupid enough to believe in the lies of the Rabbis (who may or may not have existed either)- the very people your biased view that the Gospels lie is derived from.  Thus, in order to accept your argument we must accept terms that undermine it at the same time.  Nojc, have you been reading the material of skeptics and atheists?  That is their tactic, too.

"

• In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as

"Hardly. It's mere statement of fact, deniable only by christians who mostly don't WANT to see the truth, or by others who don't care what the new testament does or doesn't lie about. I have catalogued dozens of lies in the new testament over the years."

lol, I've seen your catalogs.  :)  I enjoy reading them like others like reading superhero comic books.  They're fun to read, but it's hard for anyone to take them seriously.

"Actually, it infiltrated the Jewish community from without while it was still called by the name of "Mithraism" and other pagan religions."

Fine, then my accusation that the Jewish community was/is filled with a bunch of asinine morons still remains.

If the Jewish people were persuaded to believe in a non-existent person alleged to have walked and talked in their own midst, they're likely to believe anything.  Do the Jewish people strike you as being overly skeptical or overly guillible?

"Non-sensical preposition, non-sensical conclusion."

Actually, yours is non-sensical.  Here's the position you are taking, in my own words:

"Believe the Jew about Adam and Eve, believe the Jew about Moses, believe the Jew believe the Jew- poo-pooe, don't believe the Jew about Jesus- ok, back to believing the Jew again..."

You are picking and choosing which Jewish views you are willing to believe.  If there were some sort of outside criteria to justify why you trusted the Jews in these other instances but not in the instance of Jesus, that would be one thing.  But you don't- you only have internal criteria.

"They make the same mistakes you christians do: apply the same standard of credibility to the Rabbis"

Well, I would put it differently- we Christians don't feel like we have to hide behind the skirts of 'Rabbis.'

Just out of curiousity, what proof do you have that the Rabbis existed?

"The Bible does NOT depend upon the nt."

The 'Bible' is obviously just a general term that we give to a particular anthology and collection of documents.   You can have a 'Bible' about anything, so this is really a fake point.  All you want to do is get a cheap dig in.

""And at the same time widely admitted that some of it is legitimately from Josephus.""

"By people who want to believe it it, I'm sure."

You silly man.  No, the SAME people who argue it is an interpolation, which you cited, are the SAME people who agree that some of it was really Josephus.  The sillyness of your argument comes in two ways- 1., it's pretty obvious that the people who attack Josephus as an interpolation usually are looking for reasons NOT to believe in it.  See my thread with Copernicus (Jesus, Part 2).  2.  You are again picking and choosing.  You trust the liberal scholars when they support your point that it was an 'interpolation' but then wish to ignore the fact that nearly all of them agree something is really there at it's core.  If you're going to throw their stuff in my face, be prepared to use both hands.

"But since it IS in dispute, I don't suggest anyone put too much stock in it. I mean, I wouldn't recommend one risk his immortal soul on it or anything!"

All I said was that it was, at minimum, evidence that Jesus EXISTED.

"Hardly. You have a report of a RUMOR that such-a-one was TALKED about. There is no positive identification, and no eye-witness account."

And about your Rabbis?  Do we have such positive IDs and eye-witness accounts about them?

"Hardly. Look at National Revelation, and then see if you can still say that. "

I like National Revelation, but does it extend to the book of Jonah?  What about Ruth?  It's a fine tool, but it cannot be used to validate every part of the OT.  You will have to use other methods for quite a bit of it, actually, and those same methods are used not only to validate the NT, but historical records in general.

""That's in Seutonius, not Tacitus. Sorry.""

"You're sorry that Seutonius agreed with Tacitus that "Chrestos""

Tacitus does not say 'Chrestos.'  There are some minor textual traditions that have that, but the majority of them say 'Christus.'  On the other hand, as far as I know, Seutonius uniformly has 'Chrestus.'  They cannot be lumped together on that point, but it doesn't help you if they are.

"was instigating insurrections in Rome, and so neither could have been speaking of your zombie-god?"

Have you actually READ Tacitus?  Tacitus does not say anything about instigating or 'Christus' being in Rome.  Tacitus says that Christians derive their name from him.  That's all.

I think any skeptic that goes to point of thinking Jesus should be put on trial agian has lost track of point!!!!!!!

That article was interesting: since when does the plantiff get to decide what the defendent must prove?  I think the article simplifies the case b/c I doubt Italian law is that messed up.

It sounds like a kind of libel case. The atheist wrote stuff saying Christ doesn't exist and the priest publicly criticized him. I think the guy has a valid point. Priests can talk about God and Jesus all they want, but when they denounce atheists by name for not believing, in a public forum, they have crossed a line:

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ's historical existence.

I'm not familiar with Italian law, but in the states that would be a good case for libel. It would be the same as if the priest said he cheated on his wife in the newsletter without providing any proof of it.

Besides answering cimics' question (b/c I'm interested too), my point was that, according to the article, the athiest said that to dismiss the case the priest didn't need to just provide evidence that Jesus existed, he needed to prove it.  That's quite a legal standard for a civil case, and since when does the plantiff get to decide the burden of proof?

Now, if the priest said something to the effect that the Church considers this guy a heretic, that would be fine. But if he states something to the effect that this guy is a godless boob who shouldn't be allowed to hold public office, or some such, then that could be considered libel.

If the person is an atheist, then "godless" would seem to be true.  As for "boob" -- is that a factual descripton?  As for not being allowed to hold public office, that would be the priest's opinion which could not be "true" or "false."  You suggested that a case of libel would be made out in the states, but so far I see no support for that assertion.

Well, if the priest simply came out and said that the guy was wrong about Jesus not being real, and said it in such a way that it damaged the guy's reputation, then that could be considered libel if the priest can't prove that Jesus existed. The statement "He is wrong about Jesus not being real" would be false then.

Well that all depends.  If the plaintiff is a public figure, then it would be his burden to show the statement is false.  And in fact, he'd also have to show that the speaker knew or was reckless with regard to its falsity.  Even if you have a private figure plaintiff, however, the claim still wouldn't work because (1) Jesus' existence would be considered an opinion, (2) A libel suit based on the pronouncement of religious belief would probably violate the First Amendment, and (3) Being part of a religious or nonreligious group is ordinarily not defamatory.  Maybe if one was accused of being a satanist, but an atheist would not be.

sntjohnny said:

lol, I've seen your catalogs [of the lies in the nt].  I enjoy reading them like others like reading superhero comic books. They're fun to read, but it's hard for anyone to take them seriously.

'Kay. Says something about your objectivity and honesty, I think, but suit yourself.

Fine, then my accusation that the Jewish community was/is filled with a bunch of asinine morons still remains.

A) I don't recall saying there aren't any Jewish asinine morons, but there are fewer than there are christian asinine morons.
B) Most Jews were well enough informed, and smart enough (two qualities Paul admits were lacking in early christians) to reject christianity.

If the Jewish people were persuaded to believe in a non-existent person alleged to have walked and talked in their own midst, they're likely to believe anything. Do the Jewish people strike you as being overly skeptical or overly guillible?

Popular myths are hard to avoid accepting - especially those myths that are almost universal in one's community and country - and doubly so for those myths supported by the sword in the hands of government and its citizens, as christianity has been for centuries.
Doesn't make christianity (or any other pagan religion) true.
It also doesn't make Greek and Roman paganism Jewish in nature.
You forgot that christianity is pagan myth that infiltrated Judea from without.

You are picking and choosing which Jewish views you are willing to believe. If there were some sort of outside criteria to justify why you trusted the Jews in these other instances but not in the instance of Jesus, that would be one thing. But you don't- you only have internal criteria.

On the contrary. I accept the Jewish report whole-heartedly. The Jews say that the messiah will do this and that, but not the other thing, and the jesus myth didn't fit their expectations - which they got from God Himself, by the way. The Jews also say that Yeshu Ha-Notzrei was a magic-worker, idolator, false prophet and led Israel astray. I accept their report. I reject only the report of the christians (who, by the way, are NOT Jewish, and never were predominately a Jewish group) as found in the new testament, and those sections of authentic historical documents which are obviously interpolations made BY christians or christian sympathizers. That is even more easy a decision to make when it's a contradiction of actual eye-witness accounts, such as the Jewish records are.

Well, I would put it differently- we Christians don't feel like we have to hide behind the skirts of 'Rabbis.'

That "feeling" and fumbling about is exactly why you chrsitians are so fractured lot and have so many squabbles (sometimes breaking out into outright violence) against yourselves. You have no "apostilic succession" nor continuity. Your "Biblical Truths" depend on which way the wind blows.

Just out of curiousity, what proof do you have that the Rabbis existed?

LOL! You're funny! I could take it seriously if you had asked, "what proof do you have that Rabbi Akiva existed?" Your question is just your petulence showing. It's on the same as "what proof do you have that the Romans existed?" History is replete with evidence.

"The Bible does NOT depend upon the nt."

You can have a 'Bible' about anything, so this is really a fake point. All you want to do is get a cheap dig in.

Bah! You know what I meant, and we all know it. I meant that the NT depends on the "Law and the Prophets" but the "Law and the Prophets" does not need the nt.

You silly man.

Is ad hominem your best reponse, or your only response?  

No, the SAME people who argue it is an interpolation, which you cited, are the SAME people who agree that some of it was really Josephus.

Ah. I see that you've added strawman arguments to your repertoire.
When did I say that the interpolations were added to a completely spurious  and/or anonymous body of work?

You are again picking and choosing. You trust the liberal scholars when they support your point that it was an 'interpolation' but then wish to ignore the fact that nearly all of them agree something is really there at it's core.

Try again. I discount those sections that are discredited by real scholarship, especially those sections that are flatly refuted by more trustworthy reports.
The jesus sections of Josephus are of inferior reliability, both as to the man's life and the man's deeds, and as to scholarship.

All I said was that it was, at minimum, evidence that Jesus EXISTED.

And you're still wrong. It's evidence for the existence of the christ or chrestus myths, (which were overlaid the known person Yeshu ha-Notzrei, and the man's days moved to a later date and suitably useful location). But they aren't evidence for "jesus of Nazareth," and not just because even they don't claim to be "eye-witness" accounts. As far as I know, they all date from too late to even be considered contemporary.

And about your Rabbis? Do we have such positive IDs and eye-witness accounts about them?

Um, yes. we do. Evidence exists for Rabbi Judah the Prince, Rabbi Judah the Levite, and Moses our Teacher, to name just a few..

I like National Revelation, but does it extend to the book of Jonah? What about Ruth?

Well, yes, it does. The Jews vouch for those books, as well as Job and the other Books of "Jewish literature." And the Torah (substantiated by National Revelation) designates the Jews as the experts on what is and what isn't "of God."

It's a fine tool, but it cannot be used to validate every part of the OT.

Some Rabbis say that the Torah (both Oral and Written Torah) is the Law; that means, the central core of the Law. The rest of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures merely explain, expound upon, confirm, and support the Torah. Some documents offered as "godly" lacked support from the Rabbis; like the "Bel and the Dragon" story, and "Sirach," and "Maccabbees." They may or may not be accepted as "true", but they're rejected as "God's Word," Any document that contradicted the Torah were rejected.
Which is what happened with the nt, as a matter of fact. It was rejected by those who knew better than to accept the lies of the nt.

Tacitus does not say 'Chrestos.' There are some minor textual traditions that have that, but the majority of them say 'Christus.' On the other hand, as far as I know, Seutonius uniformly has 'Chrestus.' They cannot be lumped together on that point, but it doesn't help you if they are.

Of what possible importance would spelling errors or cultural variations or accent be? Are Osma bin Laden (or bin Ladin) and Osama bin Laden (or bin Ladin) not the same person?

Have you actually READ Tacitus? Tacitus does not say anything about instigating or 'Christus' being in Rome. Tacitus says that Christians derive their name from him. That's all.

Have you even read what Tacitus said, according to the piece you yourself cited? It clearly says these insurgents were operating under "the instigation of Chrestus." If you can't understand what is plainly stated in the piece YOU offered in the first place, don't to try to talk to someone else about what isn't written there.
And why do I care if jesus was spoken of by Tacitus or anybody else, when it's already painfully obvious that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference?
Don't need him. Don't want him. Don't care if he lived or died.
I have God. Who needs jesus? Whether he lived and died or not is beside the issue.
Of course, here, the judge said to prove jesus lived, but that's merely a mental exercise. It still wouldn't mean jesus is of any importance in the larger problem of abiding by the Wishes of God.