Did Jesus Exist, etc?

The G&M has a list or blog going on the "Was Judas a Hero?" story. I made a couple of posts, and this is the response I got from someone named J Kay. My response to J Kay follows.

J Kay from Canada writes: Richard Ball:

Outside of Canon there are infact ZERO supporting historical sources for the historicity of Jesus and I'll contend that Tom Harper is at least one current theologian who doubts the historicity of Jesus but since you mentioned it can you cite and sources that support your claim that 'there are few if any historians who deny the historicity of jesus'. Citations please because from what I've read there seems to be quite a significant contingent of biblical scholars who also doubt it. I find Tom Harper's conversion from Anglican Priest and Professor of Theology at University of Toronto to skeptic of Jesus' historicity. Betrand Russell, while dead surely doubted it as did Northrup Frye.

You mentioned Josephus however the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews is widely dismissed as a later Christian insertion, which is inconsistent with the remainder of Josephus.

Pliny the Younger doesn't mention Jesus/Yeshua at all, merely corresponds with Trajan regarding Christians.

The existence of Christians at the time does not prove the existence of Jesus any more than references to people who the Greek God Zeus proves the existence of a literal Zeus. Suetonis doesn't refer to christ either but chrestus, which is highly unlikely to be a mispelling of Christus seeing as he's refering to Chrestus being expelled from Rome in 54 A.D. which would be interesting given Christ was dead by then.

The argument that Christ must have existed because of how many people believe today is specious. Who founded Hinduism? There are nearly 1 billion adherents to it, does that therefore imply that Brahma, Vishnu or Kali also exist?

Largely Christianty exists as a faith today with the power is has because it was the state supported faith of one of the most power empire to grace the planet. If the Romans believed in and adopted Zoroastriasm, it likely would have had many more adherents today.

Your cite Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and perhaps latter Paul who never met or had any interaction with Jesus. The 4 synoptic gospels however were not written by any of the apostles. They are at best oral tradition ascribed to the apostles by later writers. However they alone do not support the existence of Jesus either and their selection as Canon doesn't make them 'gospel'.

They were selected at the Council of Rome. At the Council of Nicaea the nature of God/Christ/Spirit was also debated by scholars of the time and they voted for the trinity explantion. The problem with assuming the authority of these sources as the only true gospels forsaking all others is that the Bishops had a vest interest in selecting Canon which supported their authority through an Apostlistic Tradition. Hardly encouraging.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

My response (hopefully done in "Christian love"!):

Re: "J Kay from Canada writes: Outside of Canon there are infact ZERO supporting historical sources for the historicity of Jesus." Even if this were true, it would prove nothing. The canonical sources are more than sufficient. If you want to discredit Christianity, at least aim for accuracy. Here are some errors in your post.

1. Tom Harpur is a theologian, not an historian.

2. "Pliny the Younger doesn't mention Jesus/Yeshua at all". Pliny the Younger: "I discovered nothing more than an innocuous superstition. They don't really do all that much. They meet before daybreak. They sing hymns antiphonally and they worship Christ as if he were a god". Disingenuous to differentiate between Jesus and the Christ.

3. "The argument that Christ must have existed because of how many people believe today is specious". I never made this argument. An argument can be made, however, that the existence of Christ, and the emergence of the Christian church, is rooted in history, and not myth or religious fantasy.

4. "The 4 synoptic gospels... were not written by any of the apostles." There are not four synoptic gospels. For you to say the gospels were not written by any of the apostles is a statement of pure faith, or perhaps better, wishful thinking. There is ample evidence that the gospel attributed to Matthew was in fact written by Matthew, that the gospel attributed to John was in fact written by John, that the gospel attributed to Mark was written by Mark, an associate of Peter, and that the gospel attributed to Luke was written by an historian named Luke who diligently investigated the facts before writing.

5. "The problem with assuming the authority of these sources as the only true gospels forsaking all others is that the Bishops had a vest interest in selecting Canon..." The bishops did not select; they recognized the books that had been viewed as authoritative from the beginning. You can impugn their motives if it makes you feel better, but it won't change the facts.