there are no references to jesus known from during his lifetime. only after his death. i'm not demanding anything. i'm answering the OP's question.
as you would expect, but it's the only relevant information available at the moment. a scientist who doesn't know how it happened but says it's "genuine" isn't relevant.
josephus may or may not have referenced jesus 30 years after his death. scholars do not agree on the legitimacy of those references, as i'm sure you're aware if you've studied this subject. it's also widely disputed that "wise king" referred to jesus. i'm not aware of any that the dates aren't universally disputed by secular scholars. link? nobody disputes that christians existed in the mid-late 1st century.
it's not conclusive that it's not a forgery, as the article claims. i'm not claiming anything either way.
reliable in the sense that what we have now doesn't appear to have changed that much since the 2nd or 3rd century. that says nothing about the reliability of the original authors in describing actual events.
no, they meant in terms of dates, places, people, etc. At least, that's what the conversation was about. Not things like "did author X use word Y to mean that Doctrine Z was the true teaching" or "is the translation from the aramaic accurate?" Those are what I meant when I said the theologians pored over them.
ok. yeah there are a lot of real places mentioned in the bible, and some real kings etc. although presumably the smithsonian isn't including the torah among the "historical" books of the OT.
It looks to me like the best evidence is hearsay. The archeological record affirms many places and events, and people who did write about him don't appear to have met him. But there are a few whose lifetimes overlapped his. A lot of possible evidence was destroyed over centuries of warfare and pogroms. There are modern cities built on top of biblical sites where it is impossible to dig for artifacts. Even without hardcore evidence, it's hard for me to believe he didn't exist. There is enough hype close enough to his time that he must have been real. Whether he was son of god, messiah, etc., is a very different proposition. I figure he was a rabbi or other religious figure whose reputation is hugely exaggerated. IMO.
I think that view is consistent with even the most ardent atheists...the whole "good moral teacher" thing. From a religious perspective, though, it's hard for me to reconcile that with his proclamations that he was the Son of God, that no one could attain heaven without His direct intervention, etc. It seems difficult to believe that a "good moral teacher", especially if a rabbi, would basically create a heretical sect of a fringe religion by proclaiming his divinity to anyone who would listen.
All the Philosophy that stems from his teachings is hard to ignore. It's not Jewish and it's not Roman. It's not something a Locke couldn't come up with, but somebody had to be the thinker behind it all.
why is it difficult to believe, particularly if it's someone with a magnetic personality? it's not as if there isn't a historical precedent for that.
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php This site has some examples of people who mention Christ.
Def: Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist. Def: Belief - An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Def: Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. According to "meaningful definitions", atheism certainly requires faith or belief. "lack of belief" is more along the lines of agnostic than atheism.
the working definition of atheism used by almost all atheists is lack of belief in god, or belief that god is improbable - not belief that god is impossible. technically the latter view would be only one type of atheism - 'strong', and you will have a tough time finding many people who actually hold that view. agnosticism technically refers to someone who thinks certain knowledge of god's existence isn't possible, so it actually answers a different question. you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. i'm certainly agnostic about deism.
Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God, and traditionally is anti-religion. Atheists have tried to sanitize their beliefs, but at the core, atheism is a belief system. It's like bizzaro religion. Either one is an atheist, or one is not. Agnosticism is much more vauge than atheism, and really isn't comparable or compatible at all.
I think Penn Jillette puts it well. [video=youtube;swkAGExZCII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkAGExZCII[/video] Summary: Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge -- literally "I don't know whether there is a god, and in fact it may be unknowable". Atheism is a statement of belief -- "I don't believe there is a god." In this sense, they are different concepts but entirely compatible.
Hey I was just goofing around about the Jesus birth certificate comment and birth certificate picture. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone or to use it as an editorial to insult anyone's believes or opinions.
nice of you tell atheists what they think. the semantics you want to use doesn't change what people think. as i said the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists believe some type of god is at least a remote possiblity, and you will have a tough time finding someone who thinks god is factually impossible.
