Was Jesus Good?

[quinntar]

 

 

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

Ok so let's say Jesus was real, the disciples, the apostles were real. So what now, is Christianity reasonably true or completely false? If it's reasonably true, then in what way is it true (You'll need to define that) If it's completely false then the discussion ends.

It's still false, duh. What do you think was at stake in our discussion?

 

Real people who had innovative ideas within the traditions that existed at the time, which were incompatible with the way the universe actually is. Simple as that.

So then we can put this pony to bed.

[quinntar]

 

You know how some have said that the new testament was invented by wealthy greeks. I had this thought, the greeks were always good at war and especially renowned for building the trojan horse.

 

I wonder if the phrase

 

"Beware of greeks bearing gifts."

 

Should be changed to

 

"Beware of greeks bearing bibles."

People say a lot of strange things yes.

I think it was Bart Ehrman that said it.

 

He's my hero, saved me from a lot of pain.

[Guest]

 

 

You know how some have said that the new testament was invented by wealthy greeks. I had this thought, the greeks were always good at war and especially renowned for building the trojan horse.

 

I wonder if the phrase

 

"Beware of greeks bearing gifts."

 

Should be changed to

 

"Beware of greeks bearing bibles."

People say a lot of strange things yes.

I think it was Bart Ehrman that said it.

 

He's my hero, saved me from a lot of pain.

 

Interesting that he's your hero, as he basically would agree with everything I've said up to this point on the NT.  Have you read any of his books?

 

And no, Ehrman did not say that Christianity was invented by wealthy Greeks, he simply said that the authors of the gospels were likely educated Greeks, who based their writings off of textual sources no longer available to us today, in addition to their own ideas, Septuagint, oral tradition, and some Hellenistic ideas.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

Ok so let's say Jesus was real, the disciples, the apostles were real. So what now, is Christianity reasonably true or completely false? If it's reasonably true, then in what way is it true (You'll need to define that) If it's completely false then the discussion ends.

It's still false, duh. What do you think was at stake in our discussion?

 

Real people who had innovative ideas within the traditions that existed at the time, which were incompatible with the way the universe actually is. Simple as that.

So then we can put this pony to bed.

 

If your interest is to simply believe that the Bible is false, that's fine, I agree.  That isn't the only interesting question one can ask though about the origin of the Bible, though one shouldn't over react to the idea that Jesus was a real man who lived and died just like every other hominid that walked on two or four legs.

[quinntar]

 

 

 

You know how some have said that the new testament was invented by wealthy greeks. I had this thought, the greeks were always good at war and especially renowned for building the trojan horse.

 

I wonder if the phrase

 

"Beware of greeks bearing gifts."

 

Should be changed to

 

"Beware of greeks bearing bibles."

People say a lot of strange things yes.

I think it was Bart Ehrman that said it.

 

He's my hero, saved me from a lot of pain.

Interesting that he's your hero, as he basically would agree with everything I've said up to this point on the NT. Have you read any of his books?

 

And no, Ehrman did not say that Christianity was invented by wealthy Greeks, he simply said that the authors of the gospels were likely educated Greeks, who based their writings off of textual sources no longer available to us today, in addition to their own ideas, Septuagint, oral tradition, and some Hellenistic ideas.

Ok, could of misunderstood that part of his lecture, was along time ago.

[Guest]

 

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

 

 

 

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

 

So, Paul meets the actual brother of his Master, and shows so little excitement? He could have just as easily used "Brother of the Lord" as referring to a fellow Christian. Paul refers to others using the same title. Brother. Mythicists are fully aware of this reference, and consider it very slim evidence for an Historical Jesus. And since you are not a Bible Scholar, this shouldn't bother you: Many of us don't care, in the least, what Bible Scholars think. If you had read this Epistle first, before the Gospels, would you still think that Paul was talking about a biological brother? That is why the Epistles should be read first. Otherwise it is just too easy to read the Gospels into the Epistles.

 

And Paul never uses the descriptive "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his Letters. He is quoted in the Book of Acts using this phrase, but the range of dates for Acts is 80 -130 AD. Paul doesn't seem too concerned with any recently dead Jesus, but with the Jesus Christ from his visions. Do you consider the Book of Acts historically accurate?

 

Shows so little excitement?  Is that really your argument?

 

An indication no where elsewhere is it referenced where Paul utilized to distinguish any other Christian, where you have the Lord in the Genitive case and being preceded by the article and noun brother.    And the context clearly seems to indicate that this is a possessive genitive.

 

Actually, mythicists assume the mythical basis for the gospels and then read their interpretation into the translation of the genitive case in this verse to fit according to their eisogesis.  You have no evidential argument, but simply a fallacious set of premises which do not support the conclusion which indeed you assumed from the start.  I have no commitment to a historical Jesus, I simply am compelled to believe that this must be the case because of the facts which are derived using the best interpretive skills available.  

 

Yes, the writers of Acts used terminology which he himself used in "Luke," and can likely not be attributed to Paul per se.  Though from what I understand scholars are split a bit on the historicity of Acts, and I have spent more of my time on other books.  

[quinntar]

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever "oral history" passed around would have been completely lost when the language was translated from Aramaic to Greek. And why would it have been necessary or appropriate to translate the sayings of the great master? This was the Huios Theou we're talking about. The Son of God! If anything, everybody should have been learning Aramaic to truly understand and respect what the master said.

 

Just one of the hundreds of reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a myth, hoax, and fraud.

Cutting analysis. Let's see how it stands up to reason.

 

Please explain the pre-gospel writing of Paul who had relationships with characters of the gospels. Even major altercations even with Peter over obedience to the Law for converted Christians, namely Gentiles. Paul also referenced Jesus' brother James which seems to also connect that Jesus was a man born to a family, and not some mystical being.

 

Though your argument is simply that oral traditions cannot sustain a message across linguistic boundaries as distinct as Aramaic and Greek. Yet, this ignores the scholarship done from Biblical scholars to see if it seemed there were textual origins or simply an oral tradition. Which is why most adopt the Q theory, that the elaborate and detailed writings are based upon in part, other textual sources and not informed by oral tradition alone. But yes, here comes the ad hominem Christian accusation.

Ok so let's say Jesus was real, the disciples, the apostles were real. So what now, is Christianity reasonably true or completely false? If it's reasonably true, then in what way is it true (You'll need to define that) If it's completely false then the discussion ends.

It's still false, duh. What do you think was at stake in our discussion?

 

Real people who had innovative ideas within the traditions that existed at the time, which were incompatible with the way the universe actually is. Simple as that.

So then we can put this pony to bed.

If your interest is to simply believe that the Bible is false, that's fine, I agree. That isn't the only interesting question one can ask though about the origin of the Bible, though one shouldn't over react to the idea that Jesus was a real man who lived and died just like every other hominid that walked on two or four legs.

I don't believe the bible is false, to me it's true as a false paradigm. It's hard to explain, and it's something to talk about in another section of ex-christian.net.

[qadeshet]

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 09:43PM

 

 

Interesting that he's your hero, as he basically would agree with everything I've said up to this point on the NT.  Have you read any of his books?

 

Prof. Ehrman walks a very fine line. James McGrath has promised to destroy anyone's career that dares suggesting that Jesus may not have existed. And McGrath is a Liberal Bible Scholar.

 

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 09:45PM

 

 

That isn't the only interesting question one can ask though about the origin of the Bible, though one shouldn't over react to the idea that Jesus was a real man who lived and died just like every other hominid that walked on two or four legs.

 

I don't know of anyone here who cares, in the least, whether Jesus existed.  I put the probability of an Historical Jesus at about 30%. Prof. Ehrman's Failed Apocalyptic Prophet model is fine, but why be certain about something you can't know?

 

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 10:00PM

 

Better thin skin, than a dense skull.

 

 

I am very hard headed.  I just don't have your 100% certainty about anything. I discovered, when I left Christianity, that I was 100% wrong, and then I had to rebuild my entire Worldview. Now, all I have to do is adopt new facts as they become available. Why do you care if some of us prefer the Mythicist position? And most, if not all, Mythicists started out as Believers. So, to say that Mythicists start out with the position that Jesus never existed is not accurate. I would really like to see you make a better case than  Prof Ehrman. I might go up to 50%.

[Guest]

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 09:43PM

 

 

Interesting that he's your hero, as he basically would agree with everything I've said up to this point on the NT.  Have you read any of his books?

 

Prof. Ehrman walks a very fine line. James McGrath has promised to destroy anyone's career that dares suggesting that Jesus may not have existed. And McGrath is a Liberal Bible Scholar.

 

TrueScotsman, Posted Today, 09:45PM

 

 

That isn't the only interesting question one can ask though about the origin of the Bible, though one shouldn't over react to the idea that Jesus was a real man who lived and died just like every other hominid that walked on two or four legs.

 

I don't know of anyone here who cares, in the least, whether Jesus existed.  I put the probability of an Historical Jesus at about 30%. Prof. Ehrman's Failed Apocalyptic Prophet model is fine, but why be certain about something you can't know?

You're confusing certainty with commitment to the best explanation available on this one, the Mysticist view simply doesn't fit with the evidence.

[duderonomy]

Ok. Maybe Jesus was real. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was transitioning, and he'll come back as Cait. Maybe Caitlyn is the new name written on his thigh or garment or whatever in the Book of Revelation!

 

Literary Jesus, or Jesus that really really honest and truly did exist notwithstanding, was he good at making tables and chairs? Truth is, no one will ever know. He was the son/step-son of a carpenter, so you assume. But what about this stuff about Jesus going to India?

 

No one knows, and not many care. But was he good?

[Blood]

 

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere.

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians.

And there we go, a complete denial of any Pauline epistles. That each of them is a pseudepigraphal writing, which is an absurd claim that very few fringe scholars believe.

 

You do realize you can be an atheist without believing absurd arguments that are simply contrary to available information. I hope so.

 

 

 

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself. 

[qadeshet]

Blood, Posted Today, 06:26 AM

 

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

 

According to the consensus of "Bible Scholars", Mythicists are just deluded fools who won't accept their conclusions on what, I am sure, are literary and theological documents, not Historical. Here are some of the conclusions of emminent Bible Scholars.

 

So what do these scholars say? From: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/

    we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

 

This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. This is not merely worse than the American Jesus Seminar, it is no better than Christian fundamentalism. It simply has different prejudices. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

 

Casey was really a piece of work.

 

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

 

I like Prof Ehrman, but he cannot cross the line on the Historicity question.

 

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

 

Actually, 1st Century History is virtually silent on "Jesus of Nazareth". This evidence is almost entirely from the Bible.

 

Some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

 

Such incredible certainty, wow. Just give us this evidence already. And don't use the Christian documents to prove themselves.

 

[in answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

 

At least this guy isn't absolutely certain, gotta give him that.

 

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

 

Are you surprised that a Theologian would think this.

 

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

 

Wrong. Mythicists aren't going away, dude.

 

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

 

How can someone who has such trust in these Bible Scholars, most of whom are Theologians, ever leave Christianity at all? The consensus of Bible Scholars means nothing to me.

[Guest]

 

 

Some anonymous people wrote some "letters" (a literary genre, not actual letters) attributed to someone named "Paul," otherwise unknown to history. These also are in Greek, and nowhere do they quote what the Great Man said, either in Greek or Aramaic, or ever mention anything about his life, sayings, or teachings. So once again "oral history" is a non-starter. These are just anonymous Chick tracts of their day. Meaningless as evidence for anything in reality, except for the sad reality of religious cults' eternal ability to convince the gullible that their con artistry is sincere.

 

The rest of your message is just apologetics and a further confusion of theologians with historians.

And there we go, a complete denial of any Pauline epistles. That each of them is a pseudepigraphal writing, which is an absurd claim that very few fringe scholars believe.

 

You do realize you can be an atheist without believing absurd arguments that are simply contrary to available information. I hope so.

 

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

Yes, I understand your ignorance about the diversity that exists within Biblical Scholarship.

[Guest]

Blood, Posted Today, 06:26 AM

 

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

According to the consensus of "Bible Scholars", Mythicists are just deluded fools who won't accept their conclusions on what, I am sure, are literary and theological documents, not Historical. Here are some of the conclusions of emminent Bible Scholars.

 

So what do these scholars say? From: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/

 

we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

 

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

 

This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. This is not merely worse than the American Jesus Seminar, it is no better than Christian fundamentalism. It simply has different prejudices. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

 

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

 

Casey was really a piece of work.

 

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

 

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

 

I like Prof Ehrman, but he cannot cross the line on the Historicity question.

 

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

 

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

 

Actually, 1st Century History is virtually silent on "Jesus of Nazareth". This evidence is almost entirely from the Bible.

 

Some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

 

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

 

Such incredible certainty, wow. Just give us this evidence already. And don't use the Christian documents to prove themselves.

 

[in answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.

 

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

 

At least this guy isn't absolutely certain, gotta give him that.

 

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

 

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

 

Are you surprised that a Theologian would think this.

 

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

 

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

 

Wrong. Mythicists aren't going away, dude.

 

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

 

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

 

How can someone who has such trust in these Bible Scholars, most of whom are Theologians, ever leave Christianity at all? The consensus of Bible Scholars means nothing to me.

Genetic fallacy galore.

 

This is how one ignores and dismisses evidence due to extreme bias. Thanks for doing a good job demonstrating this for us all.

[midniterider]

Ok. Maybe Jesus was real. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was transitioning, and he'll come back as Cait. Maybe Caitlyn is the new name written on his thigh or garment or whatever in the Book of Revelation!

 

Literary Jesus, or Jesus that really really honest and truly did exist notwithstanding, was he good at making tables and chairs? Truth is, no one will ever know. He was the son/step-son of a carpenter, so you assume. But what about this stuff about Jesus going to India?

 

No one knows, and not many care. But was he good?

 

He was good at pissing off Romans.

[qadeshet]

 

Blood, Posted Today, 06:26 AM

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

According to the consensus of "Bible Scholars", Mythicists are just deluded fools who won't accept their conclusions on what, I am sure, are literary and theological documents, not Historical. Here are some of the conclusions of emminent Bible Scholars.

 

So what do these scholars say? From: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/

 

we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

 

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

 

This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. This is not merely worse than the American Jesus Seminar, it is no better than Christian fundamentalism. It simply has different prejudices. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

 

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

 

Casey was really a piece of work.

 

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

 

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

 

I like Prof Ehrman, but he cannot cross the line on the Historicity question.

 

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

 

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

 

Actually, 1st Century History is virtually silent on "Jesus of Nazareth". This evidence is almost entirely from the Bible.

 

Some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

 

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

 

Such incredible certainty, wow. Just give us this evidence already. And don't use the Christian documents to prove themselves.

 

[in answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.

 

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

 

At least this guy isn't absolutely certain, gotta give him that.

 

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

 

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

 

Are you surprised that a Theologian would think this.

 

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

 

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

 

Wrong. Mythicists aren't going away, dude.

 

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

 

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

 

How can someone who has such trust in these Bible Scholars, most of whom are Theologians, ever leave Christianity at all? The consensus of Bible Scholars means nothing to me.

Genetic fallacy galore.

 

This is how one ignores and dismisses evidence due to extreme bias. Thanks for doing a good job demonstrating this for us all.

 

 

We've moved most of this to the other thread, but I'll go ahead and answer this one. Bible Scholars study an ancient literary work and believe that they're doing History. And yes, they are good at what they do, it's just that they are wasting their time disecting an old literary work. I just don't respect what they do. They are debating whether or not Rhett Butler really left Scarlett or not. They are like Theologians in the Middle Ages debating how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin. The Bible is a literary classic just like the Enuma Elish and the Odyssey. A part of you knows this, because you're not a Christian, so why do you idolize the consesus of Bible Scholars? And since 75% of Bible Scholars are convinced the Ressurection occured, why don't you accept that consesus? And I dismiss their evidence because because it's entirely based on old Myths and Legends. A failed apocolyptic Prophet, who may have called himself Jesus, might have existed, and might have inspired this Myth. "Jesus of Nazareth" Is a specific literary creation found in this Myth.

[ironhorse]

 

 

Blood, Posted Today, 06:26 AM

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

According to the consensus of "Bible Scholars", Mythicists are just deluded fools who won't accept their conclusions on what, I am sure, are literary and theological documents, not Historical. Here are some of the conclusions of emminent Bible Scholars.

 

So what do these scholars say? From: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/

 

we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

 

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

 

This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. This is not merely worse than the American Jesus Seminar, it is no better than Christian fundamentalism. It simply has different prejudices. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

 

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

 

Casey was really a piece of work.

 

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

 

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

 

I like Prof Ehrman, but he cannot cross the line on the Historicity question.

 

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

 

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

 

Actually, 1st Century History is virtually silent on "Jesus of Nazareth". This evidence is almost entirely from the Bible.

 

Some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

 

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

 

Such incredible certainty, wow. Just give us this evidence already. And don't use the Christian documents to prove themselves.

 

[in answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.

 

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

 

At least this guy isn't absolutely certain, gotta give him that.

 

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

 

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

 

Are you surprised that a Theologian would think this.

 

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

 

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

 

Wrong. Mythicists aren't going away, dude.

 

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

 

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

 

How can someone who has such trust in these Bible Scholars, most of whom are Theologians, ever leave Christianity at all? The consensus of Bible Scholars means nothing to me.

Genetic fallacy galore.

 

This is how one ignores and dismisses evidence due to extreme bias. Thanks for doing a good job demonstrating this for us all.

 

 

We've moved most of this to the other thread, but I'll go ahead and answer this one. Bible Scholars study an ancient literary work and believe that they're doing History. And yes, they are good at what they do, it's just that they are wasting their time disecting an old literary work. I just don't respect what they do. They are debating whether or not Rhett Butler really left Scarlett or not. They are like Theologians in the Middle Ages debating how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin. The Bible is a literary classic just like the Enuma Elish and the Odyssey. A part of you knows this, because you're not a Christian, so why do you idolize the consesus of Bible Scholars? And since 75% of Bible Scholars are convinced the Ressurection occured, why don't you accept that consesus? And I dismiss their evidence because because it's entirely based on old Myths and Legends. A failed apocolyptic Prophet, who may have called himself Jesus, might have existed, and might have inspired this Myth. "Jesus of Nazareth" Is a specific literary creation found in this Myth.

 

 

 

I will have to search a little more but I think the idea that most Bible scholars

accept the physical resurrection is a tad high. That number might be correct if you mean conservative 

scholars but there many who are not.

 

Consider:

 

“So thinking on the Resurrection in modern scholarship differs widely and it is by no means accepted even by all Christian scholars that it was a historical event whereby Jesus genuinely rose physically from the dead.  Many liberal Christian scholars consider the Resurrection to be a spiritual realisation or a mystical revelation rather than a physical event.  And non-Christian scholars consider it to be wholly unhistorical and simply a psychological cult reaction to the shock of the execution of the sect's leader.”

~Tim O'Neil, an atheist who has studied the scholarship on the historical Jesus.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-biblical-scholars-view-the-resurrection-of-Jesus-Christ

[quinntar]

 

 

 

Blood, Posted Today, 06:26 AM

Without arguments from the consensus of theologians, you wouldn't have any arguments at all. Try thinking for yourself.

According to the consensus of "Bible Scholars", Mythicists are just deluded fools who won't accept their conclusions on what, I am sure, are literary and theological documents, not Historical. Here are some of the conclusions of emminent Bible Scholars.

 

So what do these scholars say? From: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/is-there-really-consensus-scholars/

 

we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

 

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

 

This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. This is not merely worse than the American Jesus Seminar, it is no better than Christian fundamentalism. It simply has different prejudices. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.

 

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

 

Casey was really a piece of work.

 

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

 

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

 

I like Prof Ehrman, but he cannot cross the line on the Historicity question.

 

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did”

 

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

 

Actually, 1st Century History is virtually silent on "Jesus of Nazareth". This evidence is almost entirely from the Bible.

 

Some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

 

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

 

Such incredible certainty, wow. Just give us this evidence already. And don't use the Christian documents to prove themselves.

 

[in answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD.

 

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

 

At least this guy isn't absolutely certain, gotta give him that.

 

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

 

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

 

Are you surprised that a Theologian would think this.

 

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.”

 

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

 

Wrong. Mythicists aren't going away, dude.

 

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

 

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

 

How can someone who has such trust in these Bible Scholars, most of whom are Theologians, ever leave Christianity at all? The consensus of Bible Scholars means nothing to me.

Genetic fallacy galore.

 

This is how one ignores and dismisses evidence due to extreme bias. Thanks for doing a good job demonstrating this for us all.

We've moved most of this to the other thread, but I'll go ahead and answer this one. Bible Scholars study an ancient literary work and believe that they're doing History. And yes, they are good at what they do, it's just that they are wasting their time disecting an old literary work. I just don't respect what they do. They are debating whether or not Rhett Butler really left Scarlett or not. They are like Theologians in the Middle Ages debating how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin. The Bible is a literary classic just like the Enuma Elish and the Odyssey. A part of you knows this, because you're not a Christian, so why do you idolize the consesus of Bible Scholars? And since 75% of Bible Scholars are convinced the Ressurection occured, why don't you accept that consesus? And I dismiss their evidence because because it's entirely based on old Myths and Legends. A failed apocolyptic Prophet, who may have called himself Jesus, might have existed, and might have inspired this Myth. "Jesus of Nazareth" Is a specific literary creation found in this Myth.

 

I will have to search a little more but I think the idea that most Bible scholars

accept the physical resurrection is a tad high. That number might be correct if you mean conservative

scholars but there many who are not.

 

Consider:

 

“So thinking on the Resurrection in modern scholarship differs widely and it is by no means accepted even by all Christian scholars that it was a historical event whereby Jesus genuinely rose physically from the dead. Many liberal Christian scholars consider the Resurrection to be a spiritual realisation or a mystical revelation rather than a physical event. And non-Christian scholars consider it to be wholly unhistorical and simply a psychological cult reaction to the shock of the execution of the sect's leader.”

~Tim O'Neil, an atheist who has studied the scholarship on the historical Jesus.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-biblical-scholars-view-the-resurrection-of-Jesus-Christ

How was Jesus resurrected, if he was dead. Didn't Yahweh say death is the result of eating from the tree of Good & Evil? So did Jesus die a good death.

[♦ ficino ♦]

To the title of the OP:

 

no, the fucker was not good.

[quinntar]

To the title of the OP:

 

no, the fucker was not good.

Ya'way that's why he died, Jesus goodness got himself dead.

[Vigile]

Jesus, if real, sacrificed himself to save us from an imaginary problem. 

 

Edward Snowden sacrificed his freedom to save us from very real, government abuse.

 

Edward Snowden is the real savior and Jesus just one of the false messiahs.

[qadeshet]

Jesus, if real, sacrificed himself to save us from an imaginary problem. 

 

Edward Snowden sacrificed his freedom to save us from very real, government abuse.

 

Edward Snowden is the real savior and Jesus just one of the false messiahs.

 

Exactly.

[Storm]

This probably belongs in the other thread, but I will state it here since this is currently where all the action is. I am but a casual observer who periodically reads articles and opinions on whether or not Jesus existed and I seem to notice one thing that I have yet to see bear any actual truth. I keep seeing people say that there is a plethora of evidence that proves that Jesus existed, yet I have yet to actually see any of this actual proof. What am I missing?

 

As Ficino (and others) have regularly pointed out, the bible is propaganda. It even says it is. So, to me, the onus rests on the ones who believe the bible to have any validity to show that what it says is even partially true. We cannot verify the authors, so it is very difficult to know their intent. I have yet to see any non-christian, non-Jewish early source that isn't heavily disputed. Several posters in this forum have presented what I consider to be significant obstacles for those who think he was real. If the evidence was so solid and plentiful, where is it?

 

It just seems that if it was so clear cut and easy to see, why do I not see it? I study and change human behavior for a living. People act much the same now as they did then. I know what people say and do now and I see how words get twisted and how interpretations are peddled and thrown around. There is no doubt in my mind that this also happened in biblical NT times. This behavior likely shaped the books and beliefs of those people, much as it still does today. This gets lost in the shuffle of historicity and literary scholarship. Human behavior shapes the world more than most people give it credit for.

 

The power of acceptance and inclusion is very strong and to buck the norm, especially in academia, can have grave, career killing consequences. This clearly takes an even higher risk when faith and emotions are involved. I know how much I struggled with losing my faith, I could only imagine how much more difficult it would be as an expert in this field to deconvert and switch sides. I also am aware that, for some disciplines, it isn't really important to go against the flow and, because of that, there is simply no need to make waves and to study or put any effort into refuting the main belief system. It might be a bum wheel in their particular discipline, but the wheel works and there isn't any reason to get dirty trying to fix something that works for now.

 

I also understand that people like me often want things to be true simply because, in some ways, it validates how we feel about having left our faith. It would be a significant "victory" for me to know that Jesus wasn't real, simply because it would ultimately validate my deconversion. I will be the first to admit bias in that regard. However, I still have to say that, as objectively as I try to look at this topic, I have not seen what I consider to be conclusive evidence that Jesus was a real person, let alone the son of god. I am open to change my mind, but at this point, I am leaning towards myth.

[Guest]

This probably belongs in the other thread, but I will state it here since this is currently where all the action is. I am but a casual observer who periodically reads articles and opinions on whether or not Jesus existed and I seem to notice one thing that I have yet to see bear any actual truth. I keep seeing people say that there is a plethora of evidence that proves that Jesus existed, yet I have yet to actually see any of this actual proof. What am I missing?

 

As Ficino (and others) have regularly pointed out, the bible is propaganda. It even says it is. So, to me, the onus rests on the ones who believe the bible to have any validity to show that what it says is even partially true. We cannot verify the authors, so it is very difficult to know their intent. I have yet to see any non-christian, non-Jewish early source that isn't heavily disputed. Several posters in this forum have presented what I consider to be significant obstacles for those who think he was real. If the evidence was so solid and plentiful, where is it?

 

It just seems that if it was so clear cut and easy to see, why do I not see it? I study and change human behavior for a living. People act much the same now as they did then. I know what people say and do now and I see how words get twisted and how interpretations are peddled and thrown around. There is no doubt in my mind that this also happened in biblical NT times. This behavior likely shaped the books and beliefs of those people, much as it still does today. This gets lost in the shuffle of historicity and literary scholarship. Human behavior shapes the world more than most people give it credit for.

 

The power of acceptance and inclusion is very strong and to buck the norm, especially in academia, can have grave, career killing consequences. This clearly takes an even higher risk when faith and emotions are involved. I know how much I struggled with losing my faith, I could only imagine how much more difficult it would be as an expert in this field to deconvert and switch sides. I also am aware that, for some disciplines, it isn't really important to go against the flow and, because of that, there is simply no need to make waves and to study or put any effort into refuting the main belief system. It might be a bum wheel in their particular discipline, but the wheel works and there isn't any reason to get dirty trying to fix something that works for now.

 

I also understand that people like me often want things to be true simply because, in some ways, it validates how we feel about having left our faith. It would be a significant "victory" for me to know that Jesus wasn't real, simply because it would ultimately validate my deconversion. I will be the first to admit bias in that regard. However, I still have to say that, as objectively as I try to look at this topic, I have not seen what I consider to be conclusive evidence that Jesus was a real person, let alone the son of god. I am open to change my mind, but at this point, I am leaning towards myth.

Jesus' existence should have no bearing on your deconversion. A man existed who said a bunch of false things, or he was a myth.

 

It's bullshit regardless.

[Storm]

 

This probably belongs in the other thread, but I will state it here since this is currently where all the action is. I am but a casual observer who periodically reads articles and opinions on whether or not Jesus existed and I seem to notice one thing that I have yet to see bear any actual truth. I keep seeing people say that there is a plethora of evidence that proves that Jesus existed, yet I have yet to actually see any of this actual proof. What am I missing?

 

As Ficino (and others) have regularly pointed out, the bible is propaganda. It even says it is. So, to me, the onus rests on the ones who believe the bible to have any validity to show that what it says is even partially true. We cannot verify the authors, so it is very difficult to know their intent. I have yet to see any non-christian, non-Jewish early source that isn't heavily disputed. Several posters in this forum have presented what I consider to be significant obstacles for those who think he was real. If the evidence was so solid and plentiful, where is it?

 

It just seems that if it was so clear cut and easy to see, why do I not see it? I study and change human behavior for a living. People act much the same now as they did then. I know what people say and do now and I see how words get twisted and how interpretations are peddled and thrown around. There is no doubt in my mind that this also happened in biblical NT times. This behavior likely shaped the books and beliefs of those people, much as it still does today. This gets lost in the shuffle of historicity and literary scholarship. Human behavior shapes the world more than most people give it credit for.

 

The power of acceptance and inclusion is very strong and to buck the norm, especially in academia, can have grave, career killing consequences. This clearly takes an even higher risk when faith and emotions are involved. I know how much I struggled with losing my faith, I could only imagine how much more difficult it would be as an expert in this field to deconvert and switch sides. I also am aware that, for some disciplines, it isn't really important to go against the flow and, because of that, there is simply no need to make waves and to study or put any effort into refuting the main belief system. It might be a bum wheel in their particular discipline, but the wheel works and there isn't any reason to get dirty trying to fix something that works for now.

 

I also understand that people like me often want things to be true simply because, in some ways, it validates how we feel about having left our faith. It would be a significant "victory" for me to know that Jesus wasn't real, simply because it would ultimately validate my deconversion. I will be the first to admit bias in that regard. However, I still have to say that, as objectively as I try to look at this topic, I have not seen what I consider to be conclusive evidence that Jesus was a real person, let alone the son of god. I am open to change my mind, but at this point, I am leaning towards myth.

Jesus' existence should have no bearing on your deconversion. A man existed who said a bunch of false things, or he was a myth.

 

It's bullshit regardless.

 

While I ultimately agree with you, it would still, in my mind, validate all the feelings and emotional issues I went through. Maybe I am looking for a scapegoat. I admit that possible bias.