Jesus was a communist

[Young Master Smeet]

Roman, I think the Meek article (post #94) I cited disputes that the early Christians were peasants, the section I quoted stated:

Meek wrote:

The range of social status in the early Christian groups thus seems very nearly to replicate that of the society at large, omitting the two extremes – the Roman aristocracy and the agricultural and mining slaves and the landless peasants.

this is published in a CUP resource, so hardly fringe scholarship, so it's unsustainable to maintain  that the scholarship is in that teh early Christians were exlusively among the poor.  The wider citation from Meek mentions that non-Christian patrons, as with other cults would have provided locales for gathering of christian cells.Another chapter tells us:

Vinzent wrote:

A variety of different Christian communities is attested by Hermas, who constantly pleads for unity. The mid-second-century material suggests a number of small communities, based in households, only loosely held together, often led by immigrants. ‘Schools’, too, such as that of Justin, would have been house-based. This situation continued for a long period of time, with different congregations acknowledging one another by passing around a portion of the communion bread, but actually remaining fairly independent.43 The ‘fractionalised’ house churches were scattered around various districts,44 each with its own leadership, while the secretary or president of the overarching forum of presbyters and teachers was spokesperson for the Roman congregations collectively in relation to churches elsewhere in the empire, and perhaps also the co-ordinator of relief for the poor

Vinzent, M. (2006). Rome. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 397-412). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

[roman]

You're right, I was specifically talking about the Galilean/Judean communities directly. Outside of Judea and Galilee it was more equal. The socio-economic message in Christianity made a lot more sense within the palestinian Jewish worldview than it did outside.The way to see this is to compare "Q" to Paul.

[Young Master Smeet]

Per Meek, :

Meek wrote:

The followers of Jesus have often been called ‘peasants’, but that is a very imprecise use of the term, which in its most direct and simplest sense denotes ‘free men and women whose chief activity lay in the working of the land with their own hands’.23 The gospel traditions depict Jesus himself as a tekton¯ or the son of one (Mark 6:3; Matt 13.55), thus of a family of independent carpenters or builders. Among his disciples are sons of fishing families with slaves and hired workers; one is a ‘tax collector’ (Mark 1:16–20; 2:14). Support for the itinerant band is provided by women who evidently have some means, including the wife of a commissioner of the tetrarch (Luke 8:2–3). In the cities, as we have seen, the patronage of householders, some of whom had wealth and even civic status, like Gaius and Erastus of Corinth, was indispensable. There were slaveholders as well as slaves among the faithful.

Though, this from another chapter may be telling

Freyne wrote:

 On the basis of scattered pieces of information from Josephus, as well as from archaeological surveys, the trend was towards larger estates, and thus a move away from mere subsistence farming of the traditional Jewish peasant class. Pressure could fall on small landowners as the ruling aristocracy’s needs had to be met. In a pre-industrial context, land was the primary source of wealth, but it was in short supply in a Galilee that was densely populated by the standards of the time (BJ 3.41–3). Increased taxation to meet the demands of an elite lifestyle meant that many were reduced to penury. These landless poor and urban destitute correspond to the lowest level on Lenski’s pyramid (Vit. 66f ). The slide from peasant owner to tenant farmer, to day labourer – all recognisable characters from the gospel parables – was inexorable for many and, thus, gave rise to social resentment, debt, banditry and, in the case of women, prostitution.

and

Freyne wrote:

It is not surprising, then, that the first century saw an increase in social turmoil in the Judaean countryside: banditry, prophetic movements of protest and various religious ideologies which can be directly related to prevailing conditions. Thus the Essenes’ practice of a common life in the Judaean desert away from the city, as well as the Pharisees’ espousal of a modest lifestyle (AJ 18.12 and 18.18) represent classic counter-cultural responses to the prevailing aristocratic ethos, treating poverty as an ideal rather than shameful. A similar stance seems to have been adopted by the Jesus movement both in its Galilean and later, Jerusalem, forms, as we can infer from the earliest strata of the gospels as well as from Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:44–7, 4:32–5).

Freyne, S. (2006). Galilee and Judaea in the first century. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 35-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University So, it wasn't so much the poorest, perhaps it was the just-about-managing…

[ALB]

I have noticed that neither Origen nor Tertullian (whose name has also been bandied around here) are christian saints. This wasn't because they couldn't work miracles from beyond the grave but because some of their views were denounced as heretical. I don't know if this has any bearing on what we're discussing (I think Tertullian thought that Jesus wasn't a god or part of god — don't ask me to explain the doctrine of the trinity; it's a complete mystery). Perhaps our learned friend Roman can tell us what light his fellow christian "scholars" can cast on this.

[alanjjohnstone]

Wiki explains Origen was not canonised because of certain of his beliefs were considered hereticalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrigenSame with Tertullianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TertullianSeems it's all dependent on accepting Father Son and Holy Spirit…the Trinity as you mention.Roman may be able to explain the theology but for a couple of hundred years there were plenty of schisms explained by the diverse geography of the Christian world of the time…Rome was still striving to be the centre.http://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/heresies-controversies-schisms-early-church-part-ii.htmlThat site gives a summaryFirst time i came across all this confusion was decades ago when i read Marco Polo wasn't such a great adventurer…his journey to China was via all the Nestorian monasteries that lined the route to Cathay and i didn't know at the time about them.

[Dave B]

i There is a lot here. I think around 400AD Platonisn was purged from Christian orthodoxy for reasons that I won’t go into. Most of the early Christian intellectuals came from an intellectual Platonic background eg Justyn, Tertullian and Origen. That I also won’t go into. As is obvious most of the intellectuals came from the upper classes; as with the Bolsheviks. Thus we have to expect some kind of skew regarding what we have available on that basis. Although the raving Maoist nonsense in Revelation of John sensibly dated to 70AD by Fred amongst others might be closer to the mark. There were more wealthy supporters of the JC movement; you make the case that they tended to be women, in the gospel material anyway? Paul and maybe Marcion were exceptions as non Platonist although both of them were from the ruling class also. Roman is a Paulinist; and I am most definitely not. On Paul the supposed argument goes that he was a Jewish artisan tentmaker? And Paul claims quite unequivocally in Acts that he was by birth I think a citizen of Rome. Supported by his alleged mode of execution decapitation which was a mode of execution for the privileged that is somewhat cross referenced? This is a paradox for many reasons. Although it is possible I suppose for members of the ruling class to slide down the scale a bit and after having gone to Eton or Harrow or whatever for a good education ending up becoming a plasterer. One has to start from a sceptical position. As regards being a Jewish ‘citizen of Rome’ as well there similar parallels in modern British history re the catholic and Jewish emancipation acts eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_Kingdom But you can keep your head down on that kind of thing. So we are looking a suggestion or likelihood of a Jewish cobbler who has gone to Eton and Harvard being in the House of Lords in 1850.  Paul went to a posh school and could or chose to write in excellent polished classical,non common, Greek.   When JC was faced with the Roman imperial state or Pilate he did a bit of a F**k you rather than wriggled and squirmed; and got a good lashing for his impudence before a working class crucifixion. When Paul got into trouble with the Roman police he told them who do you think I am a ‘black lives matter’ ‘person of colour’ or something? Don’t mess with me you oink I am a member of the white ruling class. The Roman police officer who is a bit of a provincial low level bureaucrat realises his mistake and apologises profusely. I guess the accent and the dress Armani toga and shoes might have given the game away. Anyway Paul demands to go off to have a personal interview with the Emperor to explain himself. That would have probably been the Anti-Christ Nero although one can’t totally rule out Claudius who had recently married his Niece I suppose. Just as when Paul said one should obey the emperor as God put him there, in Romans was it?,   It is just possible he was talking about Claudius. I think that Paul was a tentmaker in the same way as the Duke of Northumberland was a coal miner. He was probably supplying tents to the Roman army as part of the military industrial complex with slave labour no doubt. The attitude of the Roman ruling class to Judaism was complicated and changed; but I think having loads of lolly helped to grease the wheels. It was the same in South Africa with the petty bourgeois middle class Asians and special privileged attention to investing Japanese industrialists who didn’t like being insulted by such things. So in that sense being an ethnic Jew and a member of the imperial ruling class wasn’t totally exclusive. Roman totally ruins his otherwise interesting pamphlet with a load of  ‘crap’ at the end about Paul the communist as well. Focusing on the his;  “…who does not work shall not eat….” What is it in thesalonians is it; Jesus I am so sad! But not to worry as ‘we’ have it as well. It is Lenin’s State and Revolution. This is regarded as a classic text by the Bolsheviks, Roman, but we hate them like we hate Paul; Thus for interest;  However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm Lenin, spit, uses it several times I think this is another one from 1921; ….we are feeding many extra people, former government officials who have crept into Soviet agencies, bourgeois lying low, profiteers, etc. There must be a determined drive to sift out these superfluous mouths who are breaking the fundamental law: He who does not work shall not eat….. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/may/21.htm Trotsky used it as well somewhere. But he who does not work shall not eat was used by the 19thcentury British ruling modern Christian class, with their wages of supervision, against the able bodied work house poor.       Lenin went onto say that the real workers were in the 1% Bolshevik supervisors of state capitalism, his analysis,  and that the people who worked in factories were ‘casual elements’. There are non holy trinity Christians eg the Unitarians that incidentally also had a non conformist sympathetic to the working class position; I think Lizzy Gaskel came from that background ? With quite an impressive list of bods; like Darwin’s grandfather. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism On the Western orientated  Marco Polo the dug a bod up from the 12thcentury recently in Tunbridge Wells or something equally stupid and somehow or other by DNA from his teeth or something decided to their satisfaction that he was ‘Chinese’. Some of the gem stones in the recent 6th century Staffordshire hoard came from and were unique to, according to the gravel monkeys, Sri Lanka. There has also been a total rethink on the Saxon German invasion myth and whimpy English Romano British Celts. From DNA analysis and isotope data on bones etc. As it looks like it happened pretty fast. And the clan oriented Saxons were in fact pseudo communists and the Romano British oppressed class preferred that and the general culture to what they were used to. Roman, like Bart Erham, says JC couldn’t have been communist Essene because they had ‘profound’ theological differences. Like they Christians don’t have ‘profound’ theological differences? That will do.

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wiki explains Origen was not canonised because of certain of his beliefs were considered hereticalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrigenSame with Tertullianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TertullianSeems it's all dependent on accepting Father Son and Holy Spirit…the Trinity as you mention.Roman may be able to explain the theology but for a couple of hundred years there were plenty of schisms explained by the diverse geography of the Christian world of the time…Rome was still striving to be the centre.http://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/heresies-controversies-schisms-early-church-part-ii.htmlThat site gives a summaryFirst time i came across all this confusion was decades ago when i read Marco Polo wasn't such a great adventurer…his journey to China was via all the Nestorian monasteries that lined the route to Cathay and i didn't know at the time about them.

Origen was a universalist (everyone gets saved) and a subordanationist (the Son is lesser than the father), both very iffy for the later Church, he also had other issues, such as his ransom atonement theology, and his semi pelagianism. But a lot of modern theologians are drawing from him.Tertullian usually gets a lot more love, and he was much closer to orthodoxy (I would argue he too was a subordinationist, but most theologians would say I'm wrong), but he was rather critical of Roman power and culture, and especially Christian cooperation with that power and culture. But he's definately considered a great Christian father in Catholocism.The schisms happened all the time, you have the Jamesean/pauline conflict, that lasted a while, until Jewish Christianity lost out after 130, you had the Arian controversy, the two natures controversy, the fililoque and so on … most of those were theological on the surface, and political deep down. Take the Jamesean/Pauline conflict. Paul (more so his followers though), was about the law and the nation of Israel, although you can see in the conflict issues of Jewish nationalism and liberation on one hand, and universalism on the other hand.

[roman]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Per Meek, :

Meek wrote:

The followers of Jesus have often been called ‘peasants’, but that is a very imprecise use of the term, which in its most direct and simplest sense denotes ‘free men and women whose chief activity lay in the working of the land with their own hands’.23 The gospel traditions depict Jesus himself as a tekton¯ or the son of one (Mark 6:3; Matt 13.55), thus of a family of independent carpenters or builders. Among his disciples are sons of fishing families with slaves and hired workers; one is a ‘tax collector’ (Mark 1:16–20; 2:14). Support for the itinerant band is provided by women who evidently have some means, including the wife of a commissioner of the tetrarch (Luke 8:2–3). In the cities, as we have seen, the patronage of householders, some of whom had wealth and even civic status, like Gaius and Erastus of Corinth, was indispensable. There were slaveholders as well as slaves among the faithful.

Though, this from another chapter may be telling

Freyne wrote:

 On the basis of scattered pieces of information from Josephus, as well as from archaeological surveys, the trend was towards larger estates, and thus a move away from mere subsistence farming of the traditional Jewish peasant class. Pressure could fall on small landowners as the ruling aristocracy’s needs had to be met. In a pre-industrial context, land was the primary source of wealth, but it was in short supply in a Galilee that was densely populated by the standards of the time (BJ 3.41–3). Increased taxation to meet the demands of an elite lifestyle meant that many were reduced to penury. These landless poor and urban destitute correspond to the lowest level on Lenski’s pyramid (Vit. 66f ). The slide from peasant owner to tenant farmer, to day labourer – all recognisable characters from the gospel parables – was inexorable for many and, thus, gave rise to social resentment, debt, banditry and, in the case of women, prostitution.

and

Freyne wrote:

It is not surprising, then, that the first century saw an increase in social turmoil in the Judaean countryside: banditry, prophetic movements of protest and various religious ideologies which can be directly related to prevailing conditions. Thus the Essenes’ practice of a common life in the Judaean desert away from the city, as well as the Pharisees’ espousal of a modest lifestyle (AJ 18.12 and 18.18) represent classic counter-cultural responses to the prevailing aristocratic ethos, treating poverty as an ideal rather than shameful. A similar stance seems to have been adopted by the Jesus movement both in its Galilean and later, Jerusalem, forms, as we can infer from the earliest strata of the gospels as well as from Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:44–7, 4:32–5).

Freyne, S. (2006). Galilee and Judaea in the first century. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 35-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University So, it wasn't so much the poorest, perhaps it was the just-about-managing…

Right. "peasant" is an inprecise term, but we can't really use "working class" either. What Meek says abut Tekton however is a little misleading, what that term actuall means is not clear, but Crossan and others have shown, convincingly i think, that in the Palestinian context it was more of a day laborer (who would usually be from a peasant background but lacking land).All of this is laid out in my book as well, the constant dispossession and from taxation and rent (utlimatel what killed the poor was rent).But yes, the followers, in the earliest, were not the most destitute, they were the anxious just-about-managing, as you say, along with some (mostly women) patrons with some disposable income (the earliest christians were financed basically by women with some extra cash). However, the movement was an apocalyptic one, and an apocalyptic one that was based on the idea of a class based reversal.

[Bijou Drains]

roman wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I linked to it on another thread a while back, but i suppose people forget…i did.https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F&EF09Stark.pdf

Quote:

Did early Christianity also attract lower class converts? Of course. Even when a wealthy household was baptized, the majority would have been servants and slaves, and surely some lower status people found their way to the church on their own. The point is that early Christianity substantially over-recruited the privileged,

 

Rodney Stark is NOT a New Testament scholar, I've read his work, his a good sociologist, but his work on the first couple centuries is just not up to par … it's not due to "tradition" that people say that early Christianity was mostly made up of the poor, it's due to serious scholarship. See John Dominic Crossan and Richard Horsley's work.One of his arguments that Jesus was middle class was that his family traveled to Jerusalem for a festival (in one of the gospels), he doesn't argue for the historicity of that even, nor argue that a poor family would not be able to do that, nor does he bring up the fact that in the story his family coudlnt' afford animals for scrifice (the offered birds). But either way, that story is NOT part of the earliest material most likely to be historical and thus one would have to argue for its historicity. The fact that Jesus is called "rabbi" doesn't mean anything since it wasn't an actual title until AFTER the 70 C.E. where the pharisaic movement became the main Jewish religious sect.It IS true that some wealth people became christians (as seen in pauls letters), but as other actual scholars have pointed out the prophets and traveling teachers required the rich people for financial support, but that's not how you do history, you can't just take a text and accept it at face value, you have to examine it and see how it could fit in different social contexts, and compare it to other texts.In short, be careful when someone who isn't a scholar of early Christianity comes out and says all the actual scholars of early Christianity are wrong.If you look at the Q source without the Matthean and Lukean context, in it's own context, as well as the Markean material in it's oral tradition form (take the individual stories and sayings), it's clear the audience was peasantry.The writings are BY DEFINITION coming from the middle class and up … but that doesn't define the movement as a whole. The fact that Paul includes AS TRADITION, the communist ethic, and then complains about people who aren't working but living off the rich, is exactly what you'd expect when someone from a wealtheir background joins a movement made up of peasants. When you go to the second century you see the same thing, the tradition sounds like it comes from the peasantry where as the writers recording them and framing them are clearly educated and middle to upper class.

You talk of the Q source and say it should be examined in its own context. I'm not an early Christian scholar, but I was under the impression that the Q source was hypothetical and was first put forward in the 19th Century. If that is correct, how can we examine it?

[Anonymous]

Nor am I an eary christian scholar but if :'Jesus was a communist? '   What is a communist? "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."Marx

[Anonymous]

Everything about Jesus and the Gospel is all based on lies,  and it is based on an Egyptian Mythology. There are not evidences to prove that there was a person known as Jesus who walked in Palestinan or the Middle East. On the early maps of Palestinian there is not a city known as Galileah it was cementery. It was also an interpolation. The 12 Apsotles were taken from the Zodiac.Theology and Apologetic there are not sciences, they are based on false premises, and most of those so called commentarist are based on the same historical lie, created to maintain a busines known as Christianity. The Christians pastors and the Catholics priest do not want the mythology to be vanished becasuse they are to going to lose their income and their business. There was a lawsuit in Italy against a person because he published on a newspaper evidences proving  that Jesus never existed.The best book published until now about the mythology of Jesus is titled: "Jeuss 3000 years before Christ," and there is a webiste known as 'Ateismo para Cristianos", and Simon Opera Magna who have debunked all the lies in regard to Jesus and Christianity. Paul did not have any encounter with a so called Jesus, he had mental illusions because he was using Opium and Hashi to treat the pain produced by Syphillis, and he did not write any of the letters Christianis only existed in Rome and it was a working class movement, as all the religion it was created based on materialsitic needs. The New Testament was written by one individual known as Eusebio, and it was written in Greek and translated into Latin, there is nothing written in Arameus.That Jesus was a communist ? It is also false statement, first, he can bot be a communist because he never existed, second, in that time there were not materialistic and ideological condition for a communist society, and third, lately the idea was propagated by the Venezuelan government in order to win the votes and the support  of the workers.Josephus was interpolated because a Jew was the best evicence to  be used to justify the existence of Jesus, and the burning of Rome was noit done by Nero, it was done by the Christians leaders, and Paul was part of that criminal action, tjhat is the reason why he was killed, he was a member of the Herodian family. He was not a Jew, he was a Syrian and a citizen of Rome.As Adam Bucik wrote in one of his message the Bible is full of craps, as well,  the so called holy books, there is nothing holy about them. The main isuse is not if Jesus exists, or did not exist, the main issue is that man created religion and religion did not create man, and it was created by man based on  materialistic needs.The Christians of Rome ( Known as the sect ) wrere looking for their liberation in the outer world, but we can liberate ourselves right here on the earth, and we do not the Bible or Jesus, or any mythology  for our liberation. If the Bible is a  Holy book,( started to be written by Polytheist and Peagants )  we can say that the Greek mythology is also a holy book, and the book of the dead, and the Popol Vuh, the book of Santerias, and the book of Voodoo are holy books

[Dave B]

  Yes re Q it is pretty shit Tim. I suppose it is about matching stuff up in the gospel material and back tracking it to an original hypothetical document. Roman is a bit of a non tota scriptua document on this, So my little Christian on libcom became a redactionist, He decided he wanted to dump the gospel of John for its deviant Platonism; ; which is the best in my opinion. He is a bit of an old fashioned 4thcentury orthododox Christian when it comes to that kind of thing. He got quite upset by the women caught in adultery in John 8 which as I pointed to him was highly seditious in its political content.  Although as new testament scholars have realised it was in fact probably  pulled out of Luke as a bit too dangerous and slotted back into the more leftwing John Identified as Lukan as with his habit of using classic Greek future pluperfects mixed with split infinitives etc. It is a bit like seeing a Jayne Austen passage slotted into  in a Phillip K Dick story apparently. Eusibius, who isn’t reliable, seems to suggest that there was some original ‘Georgdy’ type version of Matthew that people couldn’t work out properly. Not having vowels in badly spelt/written  lumpen Hebrew wouldn’t help.

[alanjjohnstone]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.htmlI find Q credibleWhen doing the google of Q i came across the M-source, something new to mehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-SourceThere are ongoing studies of the Gnostic gospels and their origins such as Thomashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ThomasIt is a scientific skill with required training to identify stuff. Trying to determine authorship of Shakespeare is an example…the differences in the Old Testament from the style of writing to work out the authors, another. Forgeries are determined sometimes by the usage and frequency of certain words. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Except by fanatical christians, this reference is generally accepted as a forgery.

I think you over-egg the pudding, ALB. Wiki appears to be more constrained in its claims.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_JesusWe should be aware that history interpretation constantly progresses and unless we consider there is a conspiracy among historians and theologists, the present predominant view is that some Jewish preacher called Jesus, originally a disciple of John the Baptist, did exist and had a small following which due to various complicated factors grew into a mass movement by fits and starts and incorporating other beliefs.But as you said, we have strayed from the "communist" traditions of the early Christian movement.While we sometimes highlight these traditions such as by a Party stall at the Diggers/Levellers commemorations, we do tend to decline any association with the early Church Fathers by endeavouring to link them to modern socialism and "convert" believers to socialism.I believe the book's author's purpose is to expose the Christian propertarians as the real "heretics" to be exposed.

You are going to find many journals, textbooks,  and historical websites , which are going to tell you that josephus did mention Jesus but the real historical evidences show that he didn't.  There is not any serious historian who has proven the existence of Jesus.  Only the charlatans have tried to do it and the only evidence that they have is the Bible which is not reliable source of information 

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

There is not any serious historian who has proven the existence of Jesus.  Only the charlatans have tried to do it and the only evidence that they have is the Bible which is not reliable source of information 

Precisely so.  Atheists insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies our claim that God does not exist.  The only problem with such a position is encapsulated by the platitudinous aphorism, so beloved of forensic scientists, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  However, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in such cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do, which in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, is absolutely zilch.

[Author]

Posts