Quote: to spend the whole debate however long it lasts posting "scholars say..."

The problem is that some of those same scholars say that jesus was just some schlepper who got whacked by the Romans. Not very godlike.

Quote:7. "Either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or he was LORD".

People who believe this shit are fucking lunatics.

(November 29, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The problem is that some of those same scholars say that jesus was just some schlepper who got whacked by the Romans. Not very godlike.

That's the only thing scholars say if they believe in the existence of an actual Jesus. The only one claiming differently are theologians and I would file them under the same scholarly category as Donaldists.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: ]

So what? I already pointed out, I'm in agreement with Robert Price. But he certainly doesn't make your case.

Of course he doesn't, but he understands that his position isn't where the majority consensus is on this matter.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: And it doesn't matter if they're christians, atheists or minions of the Flying Spaghetti monster. What matters is their work record and what their peers think of it.

I am talking about the general consensus here, and the general consensus is on my side.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: The last one on your list is an obvious quack.

To who? To you? Or to someone where it actually matters what they think?

So what's the scholarly consensus regarding the resurrection of Jesus?

(November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you were to go a little more in-depth, you'd find most of the historians you claim for your side don't base their opinion on the sources you've cited.

They don't base their opinion SOLELY on the sources I've cited...they use other supplementary sources...like the Gospels, Paul's Epistles...the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church...all of these things, PLUS the sources that I've cited is more than enough historical data for virtually all historians to agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is not just one source, but a totality of all of those things.

I'm getting damn tired of yet another embarrassment to my faith beating about the bush. Sheesh, either crap or get off the pot already!

I'm going to take over. His Moronicry can sit down and let a real pro handle this topic. Everyone come join me in my thread...

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Deux) (Link to follow once I've posted)

(November 29, 2014 at 11:17 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you were to go a little more in-depth, you'd find most of the historians you claim for your side don't base their opinion on the sources you've cited.

They don't base their opinion SOLELY on the sources I've cited...they use other supplementary sources...like the Gospels, Paul's Epistles...the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church...all of these things, PLUS the sources that I've cited is more than enough historical data for virtually all historians to agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is not just one source, but a totality of all of those things.

As far as I know, Ehrman pretty much only uses the NT as evidence for Jesus' existence (with a proper textual analysis, of course). He sees the evidence you cited in the OP as very weak.

Quote:the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church.

May as well use Grimm's Fairy Tales.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not quite. You certainly have argued that that majority of historians believe that Jesus existed. I'm not going to argue that point with you because I think you are right.

Right, and there are many non-Christians in that bunch.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: BUT, you have also been trying to provide a list of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. And my posts have been about the inaccuracies of your list. Your first list included two Christians about which you have admitted you were mistaken.

A real man admit to his mistakes...but that is neither here nor there, because those two were replaced by others.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Let's look at your latest attempt at that because it shows evidence that either you still cannot be bothered to read, or you are a liar.

Or it can be none of the above...and that you, like many others on here, lack reading comprehension skills as I will demonstrate below.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

Quote:1. Bart Erhman
2. Robert Price
3. Michael Grant
4. Will Durant
5. James Tabor

Erhman, Grant, Durant and possibly Tabor fit you bill. But Robert Price is a one of the Jesus is mythology camp:

Fine, but I gave the link and quoted you wikipedia's citation of what Robert Price said in his book regarding the fact that despite he doesn't believe in the historical Jesus, he admits that his position is in conflict with the majority of scholars in this regard.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

Quote: He questions the idea of a historical Jesus; in the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, Price supports a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, suggesting that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from the popular Mediterranean dying-rising saviour myths of the time, such as that of Dionysus. He argues that the comparisons were known at the time, as early church father, Justin Martyr had admitted the similarities. Price suggests that Christianity simply adopted themes from the dying-rising god stories of the day and supplemented them with themes (escaping crosses, empty tombs, children being persecuted by tyrants, etc.) from the popular stories of the day in order to come up with the narratives about Christ.He has argued that there was an almost complete fleshing out of the details of the gospels by a Midrash (haggadah) rewriting of the Septuagint, Homer, Euripides' Bacchae, and Josephus.

Robert M. Price wikipedeaemphasis mine

This is irrelevant. As you were given...he admits that the majority consensus amongst scholars is that Jesus existed, despite himself not believing.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: As I gave you his name as an atheist doubter and several links concerning him, I am truly puzzled as to why you included him. I suspect you simply don't bother to read carefully, or to think clearly.

---

(November 26, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Jenny A Wrote: A little list of atheist biblical scholars who do not believe in the historicity of Jesus:

G. A. Wells, an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He does allow the the possibility of historic Jesus he just doesn't think it's likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

Earl J. Doherty, a Canadian author with bachelor's degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages but no completed advanced degrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

Robert McNair Price, doctorates in theology and former Baptist preacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

Richard Cevantis Carrier, PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
Looky, Looky, a man whose background really is history---that makes him a rare man in the Jesus wars.

---

Again, these are the minority, Jenny. One of the men on your list already admitted it.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I have stated unequivocally that that is NOT my position:

Well then issue is whether or not the majority is just a bunch of wishful Christians, and the answer is no.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yep, I didn't think you would want to go back to the texts you listed in your OP. That's because they really aren't so good. And we spent the first 10 or 20 pages of this thread demolishing them.

You guys didn't demolish anything. If the majority of historians believe that Jesus existed...what are they basing this conclusion on?? The Gospels?? Why would they believe that Jesus existed...what sources are they using?? If they aren't using the sources that I provided as supplementary evidence that Jesus existed, then what makes them all convinced? The Gospels are the next best thing as far as documentary evidence...so do they draw the conclusion based on the Gospels? What is it?

The sources that I provide in the OP is clear evidence that a man named Jesus existed...and it is very fortunate that historians aren't foolish enough to believe that the Christian religion originated based on a man that never actually existed in the first place.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now let me explain why I'm not particularly impressed by the vast majority of biblical historians as proof of anything. First, the appeal is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. Second, most of the people who call themselves biblical historians are really only nominally historians. What they mostly are is theologians and/or apologists.

The appeal to authority would only be the case if I said "Such and such said it, and they are historians, therefore, it is true". But that isn't what I am saying. You people attacked the sources, and I merely said that the majority of historians that already agree that Jesus existed uses these same sources as evidence...and also not every historian that is included in this majority bunch is a Christian...which says a lot, because it shows that there are no biases there, they are letting the evidence speak for itself.

Your second point is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter if they are theologians or apologists, because the evidence that they use is independent of their personal beliefs, which is why non-Christians are also included in that majority bunch, because the evidence is independent of one's personal beliefs.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: In the words of James Tabor:

Quote:I have not chosen to “answer” Witherington’s critique of my book in an explicit and direct way. I think our basic presuppositions are so very different on many issues there is, unfortunately, simply no room for dialogue. Ben is doing theology and I am trying my best to stick with history. Witherington wrote me in the course of his questioning my discussion about Jesus having a father that he believed the blood samples tested on the Shroud of Turin had strangely showed neither X nor Y chromosomes, indicating that Jesus was somehow human, but without normal human blood like the rest of us with two human parents. I must admit, it took me aback more than a bit. But it also helped me to realize that in such circles the normal rules of scholarly engagement and critical discussion are suspended.

http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/08/james-...romosomes/ emphasis mine

Irrelevance.

(November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sometimes this bias is extraordinary clear as in the case of William Lane Craig who when asked:

Quote:Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

Common Sense Atheismhttp://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10...craig.html

Replied that

Quote:he would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus, due to the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit.

ibid

That kind of thinking is NOT the thinking of a historian it's theology pure and exceedingly simple.

So? Back to the actual evidence?

Irrelevant. Even if Christianity was proven to be false, that still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

---

(November 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: [quote='His_Majesty' pid='806234' dateline='1417280882']
there are others on here just like you...that failed to comprehend what "Part 1" means...and that this post was to set the foundation up for the bigger conclusion of the Resurrection as a whole.

Well, you've spent 41 pages dancing the "Scholars Say" shuffle with regards to the existence of a Jesus of some kind. I'm hoping you'll move on to the "case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ" part of your presentation very soon since, "part I" or no, that is supposed to be the point of this thread.

I'm just breathless with anticipation.

Anytime now.
If everyone SHUT UP about this one then maybe we can move on..but if not, lets keep at it...because I can go all night long.

(November 29, 2014 at 11:49 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If everyone SHUT UP about this one then maybe we can move on..but if not, lets keep at it...because I can go all night long.

Don't worry about it. I've got you covered.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-29983.html