Do you think jesus christ existed

[houseofcantor]

Richard Carrier.

That carries about as much weight as saying "David Irving".

Well, that's about the end of our discussion. Poopyhead.

[Aractus]

I take issue with anyone who refers to themselves as a 'scholar' they are serious published academics or they aren't. Personally I am inclined to think that there was someone of about that time who was at the very least the model for the biblical Jesus and may well have done some of the things reported of him.There is no evidence for anything else

Could you possibly have made a weaker argument?

Please list the evidence. Christian use Josephus when we know for certain at least some of it is faked and the gospels are incredibly weak evidence (in historical terms it would be wrong to state that they are not evidence at all, the just contain no reliability).

I already listed the evidence. All you responded with was a straw man argument. I'm well aware that Josephus didn't say that Christ was resurrected, that isn't news to me. Josephus writes that James of Jerusalem is the brother of Jesus (this is not disputed), he records the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (also virtually not disputed), and finally the disputed section known as the Testimonium Flavianum, the consensus view is that while it isn't authentic it is partially original and that Josephus did record the death/crucifixion of Christ under Pilate.

There is that 'scholar' word again. I started out as a historian and I have never heard that term used by historians and I have a post graduate degree (masters) in history.

Scholar relates to people who specialize in the study of ancient literature in either the New Testament times or the Old Testament times (and consequently you have NT Scholars and OT Scholars), a person who is a Biblical Scholar is either an NT Scholar or an OT Scholar (or both).

To be a serious biblical historian you need to be a Scholar.

This is complete and utter nonsense I could within a day or two give you a list of 500 people who ,beyond any reasonable doubt' existed in the first half of the First century CE. Just off the top of my head without any checking at all

Yes you could, but you don't have the same amount of evidence for them.

Julius Caesar - well yes you have his bust don't you? But you still don't have any contemporary writings, and the writings you do have are not preserved anywhere near as well as the New Testament text is (there are some 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts of the Net Testament text, on average each one of those manuscripts has about 40 pages intact, so you have a total of more than 2.3 million pages of ancient Greek text that are original copies of the New Testament text (copies as opposed to translations). You then have at least 20,000 translated manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, etc. So let's say the number is 25,000.

Do you have 25,000 surviving ancient manuscripts relating to Julius Caesar?

Pontius Pilatus

There are only three references to him, counting the New Testament as one reference - counting Josephus as another - and finally counting this as the third:

Oops there are 4! Tacitus is number 4.

---

Aractus, I keep running into claims that an "overwhelming majority" of Biblical historians accept certain details about a historical Jesus, with no citation to support such claims. I understand that you no longer question certain details, but help me out. I'm curious to know if there is consensus amongst current historical scholars -- both Christian and non-Christian.[/font]

Yes, there is current consensus on those three points - well beyond consensus, they're virtually undisputed. There are more points that are undisputed.

His existence. Evidence: New Testament (minimum of 8 different authors), Josephus, early church fathers, the Jewish Talmud, Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan, and the Roman historian Tacitus (and he also counts as a 4th reference to Pilate's existence, I forgot about that, so I'll amend that list from 3 independent references to 4 for Pilate's existence).

[Aractus]

That carries about as much weight as saying "David Irving".

Well, that's about the end of our discussion. Poopyhead.

LOL! That was good for a giggle.

[Zen Badger]

Why do you keep banging on with the same tired old shit Danny?

It's all either been refuted repeatedly or shown not to be relevant

I'll also make the point that not one of the non biblical sources you love to quote even makes a big deal of Jesus.

And even if they proved that someone called Jesus actually existed, so what?

Without the miracles or the resurrection it means precisely squat.

[Aractus]

It's all either been refuted repeatedly or shown not to be relevant

Show me.

[Minimalist]

I take issue with anyone who refers to themselves as a 'scholar' they are serious published academics or they aren't.

I'll tell you what. The moment your opinion matters I'll let you know.

[Zen Badger]

It's all either been refuted repeatedly or shown not to be relevant

Show me.

Show me the miracles.

[là bạn điên]

I say yeah, the majority of historians and scientists say he did, and the Bible itself is a pretty reliable historical document (save for the miracle bits). I would even go as far as to say Jesus was crucified.

The Bible is an appalling historical document and is reliable for almost nothing.

[Aractus]

Show me.

Show me the miracles.

Honestly Zen, why can't you respond with your smoking gun proof that everything I said has already been disproved - show me.

[Minimalist]

Historically, the bible is a pile of shit.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704190/posts

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Those who take an interest have known these facts for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and doesn't want to hear about it.

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.

Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people—and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story—now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

This is what happens when professional archaeologists replace the phony preachers-masquerading-as-archaeologists who dominated the field in the early 20th century.,