How do we know Jesus ever lived at all? (paranormal, eternal, theology)

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by TempusFugitive

You claimed I was wrong to say 'Most scholars accept this'. You're engaged in a moving the goalpost fallacy.

My claim was that there is still debate, I did not mention your wording

Interesting that you misuse your own invented fallacy, or you don't understand why it's fallacious. Yes, people can be deceived about another's divinity. They probably are not deceived about whether someone exists or not.

Im not misusing it, son.
They can certainly be deceived about whether someone existed or not. But that wasn't the issue, the issue was whether they would die for mistaken belief. You are attempting to falsely narrow down what that belief might be [ie., one type of beleif vs any other]. The point of the fallacy, and the point of my contention to your statement, was that people die for things they are wrong about but believe intensely in all the time, and that you have actual examples right from your own lifetime of them doing it.
My fallacy also mentions some of them were going to be killed anyway, but that's not relevant at the moment.

It's a guess. Nobody knows if that's actually his house. I invite people to look in to that as well. The only records we have of a William Shakespeare are birth and baptismal and marriage records, which may not have referred to the playwright at all.

Shakespeare's Birthplace - Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Im afraid you are wrong about that, too.

I do not think you understand what the Strawman fallacy is, either. I will attempt to be helpful.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A straw man fallacy is when I misinterpret your stance. I stated that if you question Jesus historicity, of which we have many, many records, you have to question many other historical figures. That is a simple stance on the evidence and did not state anything about your particular argument at all.

Your false hyperbole about how much evidence there is for Jesus notwithstanding, that's precious. You did misinterpret my stance, in order to knock down the false stance you gave.

You said unless I intended to say others did not historically exist... that was your strawman of my argument. I never made that argument. You then went on to knock down the argument I never made. that's 'strawmanning'.

You are simply incorrect about this. Are you aware that you're misusing fallacies, engaging in fallacious arguments such as moving the goalposts and showing a lack of knowledge of history?

No, I am unaware of things I am not doing.

[TempusFugitive]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

My claim was that there is still debate, I did not mention your wording

Im not misusing it, son.

You most certainly are.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

They can certainly be deceived about whether someone existed or not. But that wasn't the issue, the issue was whether they would die for mistaken belief.

So you're suggesting that the Apostles... What? Please be specific. How were they deceived in to thinking they walked and talked to a living man who claimed to be called Yeshua. I look forward to your explanation. Perhaps I am merely being narrow minded. Please be specific about how they were deceived in to thinking that.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

You are attempting to falsely narrow down what that belief might be [ie., one type of beleif vs any other]. The point of the fallacy, and the point of my contention to your statement, was that people die for things they are wrong about but believe intensely in all the time, and that you have actual examples right from your own lifetime of them doing it.
My fallacy also mentions some of them were going to be killed anyway, but that's not relevant at the moment.

And in this case, I understand you could perceive they could be wrong about his divinity. If you're questioning his existence, however, which is what this whole thread is about, I look forward to your explanation about how the Apostles were deceived in to thinking he existed, walked and talked with them. It's possible that I simply don't understand how that could be, but I suspect you're simply being absurd.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Shakespeare's Birthplace - Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Im afraid you are wrong about that, too.

Would you accept the Smithsonian as an accurate counter to your claims?

William Shakespeare, Gangster | Past Imperfect

Hopefully, you're aware that a tourist trap is not accurate history.

For those who are reading, as I suspect that Heathen Hammer will refuse to acknowledge that he's incorrect on even the smallest point, so this isn't really for him, the question is: Which is more accurate - The Smithsonian, or the tourist trap he visited, that also says it is only a guess in the YouTube videos that are embedded. Feel free to watch those as well. Even Heathen Hammer's own source disagrees with him.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Your false hyperbole about how much evidence there is for Jesus notwithstanding, that's precious. You did misinterpret my stance, in order to knock down the false stance you gave.

Feel free to quote where I specifically misinterpreted your stance and how. I simply pointed out the foolishness of your stance.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

You said unless I intended to say others did not historically exist... that was your strawman of my argument. I never made that argument. You then went on to knock down the argument I never made. that's 'strawmanning'.

That is based on the evidence. It is not a strawman because I was simply stating that the only way your argument could be internally consistent without you demanding far more proof of Jesus than other historical figures, you would have to. There are alternates: You could demand more proof of Jesus than any other historical figure. I never said you questioned William Shakespeare. I simply stated that in order for your argument to have merit, you would have to. That isn't a strawman. Do you understand the difference, now?

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

No, I am unaware of things I am not doing.

In conclusion, for those who are not Heathen Hammer.: Either Heathen is right, or his sources(Which disagree with him) and the Smithsonian is correct. Feel free to look for any contemporaries discussing their meetings with either Hammurabi or Shakespeare. Can you find more first person evidence than there is on Jesus? You will not be able to. And that's fine - You can still believe that Shakespeare existed and Hammurabi existed, but there is actually more first person information on Jesus than on both of them.

[TRANSPONDER]

While it might seem to be going of- topic, an evaluation of whether Shakespeare is adequately supported by firm evidence to be the London - based playwright and the house at least in the location of the house that he owned or whether there is good reason to doubt that he ever really lived (because that is what the analogy would have to argue) and that the plays were all written by other people (no another person, because that would be a Shakespeare - figure under another name and a person doing and saying what Jesus did who wasn't actually Jesus would scupper the whole Jesus - claim) would really establish whether Hammar has the right of the argument or whether Tempus does.

I'd be willing to assist with the research as I looked into the Bacon is Shakespeare 'hidden messages' thing decades ago and it was the falsity of that claim that really showed me that the 'Bible codes' were rubbish some time before it was realized that it was based on a statistical special -pleading fallacy.

[TempusFugitive]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

While it might seem to be going of- topic, an evaluation of whether Shakespeare is adequately supported by firm evidence to be the London - based playwright and the house at least in the location of the house that he owned or whether there is good reason to doubt that he ever really lived (because that is what the analogy would have to argue) and that the plays were all written by other people (no another person, because that would be a Shakespeare - figure under another name and a person doing and saying what Jesus did who wasn't actually Jesus would scupper the whole Jesus - claim) would really establish whether Hammar has the right of the argument or whether Tempus does.

I'd be willing to assist with the research as I looked into the Bacon is Shakespeare 'hidden messages' thing decades ago and it was the falsity of that claim that really showed me that the 'Bible codes' were rubbish some time before it was realized that it was based on a statistical special -pleading fallacy.

Oh, no. I agree Shakespeare is the person who wrote the play. The question isn't, 'Did he do that', but rather 'Is there more evidence that he did that than there is that Jesus existed?'.

Knowing that we have four separate first person accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Patrologia Latina, Tacitus and Josephus as second hand accounts as well as various letters written between the Romans and the Jews and countless third hand accounts.

The question is, "Is there more evidence of Jesus than of Shakespeare or Hammurabi?"

Most people being honest will say that this is true if they look at all the evidence. Definitely, feel free to look in to whether Shakespeare existed. Just be sure to apply the same rules that seem to apply to Jesus.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by TempusFugitive

You most certainly are.

Very precious of you

So you're suggesting that the Apostles... What? Please be specific. How were they deceived in to thinking they walked and talked to a living man who claimed to be called Yeshua. I look forward to your explanation. Perhaps I am merely being narrow minded. Please be specific about how they were deceived in to thinking that.

Overall I am suggesting that the history you think you have for the apostles is mostly fiction.

More narrowly though what I am suggesting is that the idea which you put forth and which I responded to in this case, that people would not allow themselves to be murdered for a belief in something or someone which actually did not exist, is absolutely false. Demonstrably so, including by dint of events from your own lifetime. Strangely you refrain again from responding about Koresh.

The writer of the majority of the NT as its currently canonized is either Paul, who never met Jesus even if he were not divine, or unknown others [and this is NOT disputed by a majority of scholars] who also could not have been eyewitnesses based on the estimates of the time of their writings. Side comment: Luke admits to not being an eyewitness in any case, so claiming he is one was already your mistake... If you are only discussing a mortal Jesus then by default Paul is a complete lair, as his knowledge is based by his own admittance on 'divine visions' which your own position would render false. If the main writer is a charlatan why do we take anything of the apostles as anything but fiction too? How is that not a rational jump?

And in this case, I understand you could perceive they could be wrong about his divinity. If you're questioning his existence, however, which is what this whole thread is about, I look forward to your explanation about how the Apostles were deceived in to thinking he existed, walked and talked with them. It's possible that I simply don't understand how that could be, but I suspect you're simply being absurd.

Would you accept the Smithsonian as an accurate counter to your claims?
William Shakespeare, Gangster | Past Imperfect
Hopefully, you're aware that a tourist trap is not accurate history.

However, that tourist trap makes definitive claims that they are in fact custodians of Shakespeare's actual home of his youth. Their words:

William Shakespeare grew up here and he played here. He ate meals in the hall and he slept and dreamed in these rooms. Shakespeare also spent the first five years of married life in this house with his new wife, Anne Hathaway. For millions of Shakespeare enthusiasts worldwide, the house is a shrine. You will discover the world that shaped the man and you'll find out what other famous writers thought when they visited here. Well-known visitors have included Charles Dickens, John Keats, Walter Scott and Thomas Hardy.

Are you stating that an historic site in GB did not make sure it was what it said, to make definitive statements and such? It's a NATIONAL MONUMENT.

It's delightful but the Smithsonian article makes reference to the already-known controversy surrounding his works and such. It does NOT throw into question whether that house was his. It mentions his home in Stratford itself. YOU are the one going on about if his works were his own and etc; I NEVER did. You mentioned his name and home and I posted a link to show the statement about his house was incorrect. That's all. Nothing more.

Where are Jesus' writings? His home? His grave? Nowhere. His first dove-tail-join chest of drawers? Oddly absent. A few artifacts? Strangely fraudulent.

{edit, added} and I find the irony rises that you call Shakespeare's home a tourist trap, as there's some reason to believe that the entire old town of Nazareth is a tourist trap created after the fact. I love it.

For those who are reading, as I suspect that Heathen Hammer will refuse to acknowledge that he's incorrect on even the smallest point, so this isn't really for him, the question is: Which is more accurate - The Smithsonian, or the tourist trap he visited, that also says it is only a guess in the YouTube videos that are embedded. Feel free to watch those as well. Even Heathen Hammer's own source disagrees with him.

For those reading, I am sure our Tempus Fugitive will not understand that he's making up arguments to place in my mouth, then takes great pride in knocking them down. He's also introducing side concepts I never mention, and knocking them down also as if this is some conquest over me.

For those reading, I wish you much amusement.

Feel free to quote where I specifically misinterpreted your stance and how. I simply pointed out the foolishness of your stance.

Unless Heathen Hammer intends to make the same case that neither of those people existed, he is requiring far more proof of Jesus than he expects of any other person in history.

There's your misinterpretation of my stance. Oddly enough I actually already paraphrased it; and here you are pretending I didn't point out where, previously. Typical.

That is based on the evidence. It is not a strawman because I was simply stating that the only way your argument could be internally consistent without you demanding far more proof of Jesus than

Never far more proof; another misrepresentation of my stance. Equal proof. You mention Shakespeare; Jesus does not come close to the same amount for him. Even with all the controversy of his works. All I mentioned was physical locations, plus ANY writings whatsoever.

other historical figures, you would have to. There are alternates: You could demand more proof of Jesus than any other historical figure. I never said you questioned William Shakespeare. I simply stated that in order for your argument to have merit, you would have to. That isn't a strawman. Do you understand the difference, now?

You mentioned Shakespeare first to compare what I asked for for Jesus in exaggeration; I responded that Id actually been to Shakespeare's house. I responded that we have far more evidence, by inference, for him than Jesus.

In conclusion, for those who are not Heathen Hammer.: Either Heathen is right, or his sources(Which disagree with him) and the Smithsonian is correct.

false dichotomy
My sources agree with me

Feel free to look for any contemporaries discussing their meetings with either Hammurabi or Shakespeare. Can you find more first person evidence than there is on Jesus? You will not be able to. And that's fine - You can still believe that Shakespeare existed and Hammurabi existed, but there is actually more first person information on Jesus than on both of them.

later post:
Knowing that we have four separate first person accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

Silly fool, the gospels and the writings of the NT are not first person accounts written by eyewitnesses. You do not have a single first person account of Jesus, not a single one.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

While it might seem to be going of- topic, an evaluation of whether Shakespeare is adequately supported by firm evidence to be the London - based playwright and the house at least in the location of the house that he owned or whether there is good reason to doubt that he ever really lived (because that is what the analogy would have to argue) and that the plays were all written by other people (no another person, because that would be a Shakespeare - figure under another name and a person doing and saying what Jesus did who wasn't actually Jesus would scupper the whole Jesus - claim) would really establish whether Hammar has the right of the argument or whether Tempus does.

I'd be willing to assist with the research as I looked into the Bacon is Shakespeare 'hidden messages' thing decades ago and it was the falsity of that claim that really showed me that the 'Bible codes' were rubbish some time before it was realized that it was based on a statistical special -pleading fallacy.

No, no please don't, certainly not on my account by any means. This is a ridiculous side bar to an already-hard-to-read* thread



*Not an editorial of your writing skill!

[Heathen Hammer]

Oddly enough, Hammurabi is an strange figure to pick to accuse me about, as while I am aware of his laws, I have no real opinion of his historicity one way or the other. I could personally support either case, as my care continuum is identical for either.

But like I said, I've been inside Shakespeare's house. When were any of you at Jesus' house?

[TempusFugitive]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Very precious of you

This is how he begins - Just to let people know. Observe how his argument begins with an insult. This is rather typical of Heathen Hammer's posts. I invite people to read his posts to see if they are actually ignorant or malignant.

Overall I am suggesting that the history you think you have for the apostles is mostly fiction.

And this would be the ignorance I'm referring to. He either refuses to recognize that calling the Apostles in to question, when we have several first party and second party evidence of them, or he refuses to accept that what he requires in evidence is higher than any other historical figure. This is either willful ignorance or just the regular kind.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

More narrowly though what I am suggesting is that the idea which you put forth and which I responded to in this case, that people would not allow themselves to be murdered for a belief in something or someone which actually did not exist, is absolutely false. Demonstrably so, including by dint of events from your own lifetime. Strangely you refrain again from responding about Koresh.

You'll note that I actually did mention this in passing because it's a ridiculous argument. His followers were deceived in to thinking he was divine, but they weren't deceived in to thinking a man named David Koresh existed and preached to them when he didn't. You'll note Heathen Hammer didn't respond to my question on this.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

The writer of the majority of the NT as its currently canonized is either Paul, who never met Jesus even if he were not divine, or unknown others [and this is NOT disputed by a majority of scholars] who also could not have been eyewitnesses based on the estimates of the time of their writings. Side comment: Luke admits to not being an eyewitness in any case, so claiming he is one was already your mistake... If you are only discussing a mortal Jesus then by default Paul is a complete lair, as his knowledge is based by his own admittance on 'divine visions' which your own position would render false. If the main writer is a charlatan why do we take anything of the apostles as anything but fiction too? How is that not a rational jump?

You'll also note that I didn't quote Paul as a first person source(Though I believe he was). I quoted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Luke was not one of the original Apostles, but he lived in that time period and never once claimed he didn't see Jesus. Please quote source if you're claiming he did say this.

You'll note that your bias is showing here. Even if I had mentioned Paul and was only discussing mortal ministry, it wouldn't make Paul a liar. It would make me mistaken. As it is, I hadn't mentioned Paul, he is not a charlatan and your argument is irrelevant.

You'll also note that the Bible was not a single book at the time. It is a collection of writings from the time periods covered from the old to the new Testament. If Paul were a charlatan, and he is not, that would not invalidate what the other people wrote any more than the Twilight series invalidates the legal books in the US Library of Congress: They are separate writers, separate works whose only link is that they're written by contemporaries set in the same location and time period.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

However, that tourist trap makes definitive claims that they are in fact custodians of Shakespeare's actual home of his youth. Their words:
Are you stating that an historic site in GB did not make sure it was what it said, to make definitive statements and such? It's a NATIONAL MONUMENT.

Yes. I am using the proofs you require of Jesus and applying them to Shakespeare. Please prove that the Shakespeare born on Stratford-upon-Avon was the same one who wrote the plays. Please be sure to apply the same rules: We need first person proof from those without any interest in proving he existed and wrote those plays.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Where are Jesus' writings? His home? His grave? Nowhere. His first dove-tail-join chest of drawers? Oddly absent. A few artifacts? Strangely fraudulent.

Where are Hammurabi's writings? His home? His grave? Nowhere. His first dove-tail-join chest of drawers? Oddly absent. A few artifacts? Strangely fraudulent.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

{edit, added} and I find the irony rises that you call Shakespeare's home a tourist trap, as there's some reason to believe that the entire old town of Nazareth is a tourist trap created after the fact. I love it.

Yes. Just as much reason to believe Shakespeare's home is a tourist trap.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

For those reading, I am sure our Tempus Fugitive will not understand that he's making up arguments to place in my mouth, then takes great pride in knocking them down. He's also introducing side concepts I never mention, and knocking them down also as if this is some conquest over me.

Now, you'll note that Heathen is being disingenuous and actually openly deceptive here. I have numerous times explained that I never once placed an argument in his mouth. Instead, I have taken his argument to its logical conclusion and asked ffor him to prove historical figures based upon his own rules for Jesus. He has not.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

For those reading, I wish you much amusement.

I'm certain they're amused.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

There's your misinterpretation of my stance. Oddly enough I actually already paraphrased it; and here you are pretending I didn't point out where, previously. Typical.

Now, I'm pretty sure everyone realizes by now that the word 'Unless' was in there, which means Heathen is simply wrong - He's either ignorant of what misinterpreting means or ignorant of clauses in general.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Never far more proof; another misrepresentation of my stance. Equal proof. You mention Shakespeare; Jesus does not come close to the same amount for him. Even with all the controversy of his works. All I mentioned was physical locations, plus ANY writings whatsoever.

Certainly. Golgotha? We know where that is. Jerusalem, ditto. If you're going to argue those places, feel free to place the same restrictions on proof that you're applying to Jesus and go for Shakespeare.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

You mentioned Shakespeare first to compare what I asked for for Jesus in exaggeration; I responded that Id actually been to Shakespeare's house. I responded that we have far more evidence, by inference, for him than Jesus.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

false dichotomy
My sources agree with me

They certainly don't.

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Silly fool

You certainly are.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by TempusFugitive

This is how he begins - Just to let people know. Observe how his argument begins with an insult. This is rather typical of Heathen Hammer's posts. I invite people to read his posts to see if they are actually ignorant or malignant.

Oh look, pot meet kettle

And this would be the ignorance I'm referring to. He either refuses to recognize that calling the Apostles in to question, when we have several first party and second party evidence of them, or he refuses to accept that what he requires in evidence is higher than any other historical figure. This is either willful ignorance or just the regular kind.

I did say most likely.

Who are the first party accounts of the Apostles?

You'll note that I actually did mention this in passing because it's a ridiculous argument. His followers were deceived in to thinking he was divine, but they weren't deceived in to thinking a man named David Koresh existed and preached to them when he didn't. You'll note Heathen Hammer didn't respond to my question on this.

You mention the name Koresh but you didn't respond to my question.
Response=/=answer

Ah! As for people dieing for something that does not actually exist [is that what you mean in micro since you keep negating my responses], how about those fellows who all had their testicles cut off and then consumed poison so they could be taken to a UFO behind that comet, several years ago?

You'll also note that I didn't quote Paul as a first person source(Though I believe he was). I quoted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Luke was not one of the original Apostles, but he lived in that time period and never once claimed he didn't see Jesus. Please quote source if you're claiming he did say this.

OK, it appears you're not going to respond to what I actually said, so, moving on....

You'll note that your bias is showing here. Even if I had mentioned Paul and was only discussing mortal ministry, it wouldn't make Paul a liar. It would make me mistaken. As it is, I hadn't mentioned Paul, he is not a charlatan and your argument is irrelevant.

Do i honestly give a **** if bias is showing to false information? Why do you types think that a negative reaction to nonsense is something the one reacting that way should somehow be ashamed of?

What makes Paul a liar, you silly pedantic, is saying he had a vision. that is the basis for his entire involvement and ministry. IF Jesus were not divine as you posited, then logically PAUL LIED. No divinity, no vision. Savvy? What don't you get about this, genius?

You'll also note that the Bible was not a single book at the time. It is a collection of writings from the time periods covered from the old to the new Testament. If Paul were a charlatan, and he is not,

He was

that would not invalidate what the other people wrote any more than the Twilight series invalidates the legal books in the US Library of Congress: They are separate writers, separate works whose only link is that they're written by contemporaries set in the same location and time period.

Again, strawman. paul being aliar invalidates what he wrote. the fact that the others were spurious authors and not eyewitnesses, invalidates what they wrote. I did not state nor infer that one invalidates teh other; each has its own individual invalidation. You really like adding to opponents' arguments.

Yes. I am using the proofs you require of Jesus and applying them to Shakespeare. Please prove that the Shakespeare born on Stratford-upon-Avon was the same one who wrote the plays. Please be sure to apply the same rules: We need first person proof from those without any interest in proving he existed and wrote those plays.

Oh wait.. I have to prove now that he wrote IN that house.... moving goalposts.
All of a sudden all these new requirements popping up. Your desperation is beginning to show.

Where are Hammurabi's writings? His home? His grave? Nowhere. His first dove-tail-join chest of drawers? Oddly absent. A few artifacts? Strangely fraudulent.

I don't know. As i said, I didn't care. Was Hammurabi a carpenter? They do, btw, think they have the original steele that stood in a city center to show his Code to people.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Unearthed in 1901., now in Paris, they think it's original from his reign. I don't really care, but it's still more than Jesus.

Yes. Just as much reason to believe Shakespeare's home is a tourist trap.

Except the British govt authorized it to be authentic; thus the landmark status.

Now, I suppose that applies to the current Nazareth viz the Israeli govt.. but Im talking about when it was created as a pilgrim waystop tourist trap back around 300 AD, I think, or so.

Now, you'll note that Heathen is being disingenuous and actually openly deceptive here. I have numerous times explained that I never once placed an argument in his mouth. Instead, I have taken his argument to its logical conclusion and asked ffor him to prove historical figures based upon his own rules for Jesus. He has not.

Ive showed extensively where you have. You are nothing but a liar at this point, atop all your other issues.

Certainly. Golgotha? We know where that is. Jerusalem, ditto. If you're going to argue those places, feel free to place the same restrictions on proof that you're applying to Jesus and go for Shakespeare.

Um, what??

Are you dipping back into my Spiderman Fallacy again?

Golgotha is not Jesus' house. I t was a place everyone was crucified upon. Placing a nonexistent [potentially] figure onto an historical location does not make the mythical figure real. Where's Jesus' house?

They certainly don't.

Quote where the Smithsonian article you stated called the Shakespeare house in Stratford, uncertain; that is what you claimed when you cited it.

HEY FOR ALL THOSE ANONYMOUS WATCHERS: I BET HE CANT AND WON'T ADMIT HIS ERROR. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME WE ARE WHISPERING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT HIM LOL

You certainly are.

Cry more, newb

[TRANSPONDER]

I am not going to judge personalities - they are irrelevant. I don't mind a person being rude to me if they make a good point. If they don't then it just makes the refutation more telling.

As to the rest, if it helps, the apostles should indeed be called into question as I reckon there is good reason to suppose that the gospels are not first or even secondhand witness of Jesus' doings and sayings, but are polemics by christian writers taking Paul's views as their cue and their greek - based dislike of jews as theur cue -chalk.

The point about David Koresh is surely that his claims to divine knowledge are worth no more nor less than those attributed to Jesus or as claimed by Paul. There is indeed sound reason to know that Koresh was a real person as there is to believe that Lincoln, Washington and indeed Shakespeare were real persons.

The same cannot in fact be said for Jesus. In fact, where we look for confirmation, there is silence, apart from later comments on Christian claims and actions which are falsely presented by theist apologists as evidence of Jesus' historicity - which they are not.

Your comment about the Gospels/Bible being a disparate set of writings is either irrelevant or a deliberate red herring. We are talking about the best evidence within or without the Bible historical canonical and non -canonical. And it adds up to squat.

That said, I think there are some indications for a real Jesus figure. A Jew and nothing at all like the gospel Christ - figure apart from having been nailed up