There may well have been an itinerant apocolyptic preacher with messianic pretensions that the stories are loosely based on. But Jesus the Christ? No . . . just no.

1) Nope

2) Doesn't matter.

(December 31, 2013 at 3:20 am)Z-one Wrote:

---

*Some people hate Wikipedia almost as much as the Bible, but it's not a bad place to start. The quote is 10 years old, and I haven't yet tracked down what constitutes "nearly all" modern scholars in this case.

As Morgan pointed out, not all scholars agree on the statement above. Even if there were consensus on only those two points (baptism and crucifixion), that still leaves a world of doubt about what might have happened before and after crucifixion -- kinda the important bits.

As someone elsewhere on the web put it: you don't need to know whether or not L. Ron Hubbard existed to conclude that Scientology is a load of crap. (My tolerance only goes so far.)

I think the possibility of a historical man who who lived and was crucified (most likely framed) is certainly there. The possibility of his existence and any future evidence that he merely existed does not change my conviction as an atheist. That would take much more.

---

Saying "not all scholars agree on"... and then listing one of the basic accepted historical facts, is akin to saying that not all historians believe the basic accepted historical facts of the Holocaust.

The basic facts accepted by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars/theologians/historians that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1. Jesus was baptized by John,
2. Jesus called disciples,
3. Jesus died by crucifixion.

There are others too. Disputing these facts which are so overwhelming supported requires you to produce evidence to support the theory, and barely anyone produces any evidence other than "the Gospels don't count as evidence" etc, which is rubbish. Even bad quality evidence is still evidence, and even scholars who think the Gospels are bad quality evidence still believe that those three facts can be reliably derived from them.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 1. there's no serious historian who doubts that Jesus was an historical figure

Richard Carrier.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 2. that many of Paul's writings (over half) are reliably attributed to him even by sceptics. He asks Finley how he knows that Cicero wrote his letters (and stumps him).

So? Ordinary claim, Cicero.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 3. It's the wrong assumption to make that Paul would invent Jesus or invent stories (he writes mainly about contemporary events and theology issues). He mentions "off the cuff"/"disinterested" comments - ie comments made that the author may assume the audience can fill in the gaps, etc, these are indeed important to Historians and Paul is not the only one who makes them FYI. He also mentions that we're sure Paul knew Jesus' relatives and disciples and this is also true.

There's the rub. Why would he lie? The short answer - Paul invented "Jesus" to be merely a vessel of Holy Spirit in order to make Holy Spirit more accessible to the ordinary mind, and to provide a bridge between the mortal and the divine.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 4. If you doubt the existence of Jesus why not deny the Holocaust or deny the existence of any historical figures.

Ordinary claims, cross-referencing, textual evidence... and the textual evidence provided by Paul is that Jesus did not exist and was a conceptual device.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:59 am)Aractus Wrote: 5. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

Not what I heard.

There's a few problems here. What we consider history and historical is not what the ancients considered. Our modern concept of history is just that - modern - and before the 1800s most would just take claims at face value. The Greeks and Romans referred to their gods in an historical context, so doing so was just the done thing. But as civilization developed with more people and better communication, the old gods did not seem to be still active, throwing lightning and violating maidens, so this new paradigm of "man magician" developed. And it developed to satisfy a basic need, to tell a story to provide explanation, or comfort, or hope, or provide moral guidance.

Which simplifies to, no, I don't believe there was a Jesus as described. I think there was magic men, witnesses who embellished local heroes, and chroniclers with an agenda.

Quote:In the longer version of the interview, the Finley eventually asks if Ehram knows Robert M. Price. Ehram responds by saying he knows all the top Biblical scholars in the world today, that Price isn't one of them,

Even you should recognize a variant of the "No True X" argument, Danny.

Ehrman says that no real biblical scholar disputes a historical jesus and Price does therefore he cannot be a TRUE BIBLICAL SCHOLAR. Just the normal run-of-the-mill horseshit from this crowd.

The better question for Ehrman - and the one that would send you scurrying from him as an "authority" like a rat jumping off a sinking ship - is what does he mean by "historical jesus."

Hint: It is not your miracle-working, back-from-the-dead, godboy.

Whether or not a jew called Jesus was around in the period is irrelevant;
The prophesies on which the entire messianic cult is based are forgeries written by Ezra and his cronies.

(December 31, 2013 at 12:32 am)ShinobiAtheist Wrote: I'm atheist and i like the character Jesus Christ but i'm not too sure he existed.

It was probably true that a person or persons that the Biblical character Jesus is based on existed.

The 'Christ' claim about him is not true.

(December 31, 2013 at 12:13 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 31, 2013 at 12:32 am)ShinobiAtheist Wrote: I'm atheist and i like the character Jesus Christ but i'm not too sure he existed.

It was probably true that a person or persons that the Biblical character Jesus is based on existed.

I'll concede it but can't be arsed to research it. I just don't really care.

(December 31, 2013 at 12:13 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The 'Christ' claim about him is not true.

So long as the 'Christ' claim has anything to do with the God claim it is an incoherent idea until someone nails down precisely what a god is.

(December 31, 2013 at 10:25 am)Aractus Wrote: The basic facts accepted by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars/theologians/historians that I can think of off the top of my head are:|

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

Quote:1. Jesus was baptized by John,
2. Jesus called disciples,
3. Jesus died by crucifixion.

Please name the non christian historians who accept as fact these things.

Quote:There are others too. Disputing these facts which are so overwhelming supported requires you to produce evidence to support the theory, and barely anyone produces any evidence other than "the Gospels don't count as evidence" etc, which is rubbish.

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).

Quote: Even bad quality evidence is still evidence, and even scholars who think the Gospels are bad quality evidence still believe that those three facts can be reliably derived from them.

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. for something to be considered a 'fact' then it must be beyond reasonable doubt. there is definitely a reasonable doubt conceding everything about Jesus including his existence.

Quote:5. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

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

There is the 6 emporers of the Caeser/Augustus dynasty for a start then add Galba ,Otho,Vittellius and Vespasian
Then lets have Aulus Plautius, Prasutagus, Boudicca, Varus, Arminius, Dubnovellaunus ,Tincomarus,Strabo,Titus fabius, Gnaius Hosidius,Gnaeus Sentius ,Togodumnus, Caractacus,Publius Osturios, Cartamandua Quintus Petillius (Agricola) Aggripina

Even in Palestine at the time there are the Obvious Herod Archelaus, Herod Philip and Herod Antipas . Then there are the Roman Governors/Prefects Valerius Gratus, Marcellus and obviously Pontius Pilatus and Lucius Vittelius

That's about 40 people off the top of my head for whom ether is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that they existed

I put an historical Jesus who was baptized by John the Baptist and had disciples of his own at a little over 50 percent. I don't think it matters much whether he was real or not unless it can be proven one way or the other, and that's presently impossible.