(February 4, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 6:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are in a minority (perhaps even on this forum) since most scholars have not come to realize Jesus was not a historical figure.

That can't possibly be intended to be taken as an argument against the Christ-mythicists, right? Surely you know that both Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity are fallacies in logical argument. I'm sure we can both find positions that were simultaneously true and yet criticized on the same errant reasoning.

Footnotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus. Just the ones that are marked agnostic or atheists because I know how much you guys respect the scholarly works of Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "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." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

---

(February 4, 2015 at 6:51 pm)Cato Wrote: Please tell me you're kidding. This is a summation of your argument:

"The Jesus shit is real because you cannot crawl around in Paul's head".

No it is not. I thought since you have strong opinions that you think are well-founded, you would has some theory to put forward. But it is nice to know know that you are only about "prove it" and not about the why of anything.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:39 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: That can't possibly be intended to be taken as an argument against the Christ-mythicists, right? Surely you know that both Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity are fallacies in logical argument. I'm sure we can both find positions that were simultaneously true and yet criticized on the same errant reasoning.

Footnotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus. Just the ones that are marked agnostic or atheists because I know how much you guys respect the scholarly works of Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "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." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Is there a point in repeating yourself? Yes, I know that historians and scholars who devote themselves to the subject overwhelmingly agree that Jesus existed, despite the fact that they pretty much disagree on every other relevant inquiry we might pursue further to avoid an agnostic view on who Jesus was. That you cite secularists who disagree with me is not an argument. Hey look, a Catholic priest who believes Jesus didn't actually exist! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie
Does Brodie's story prove anything? Well, it proves that the in-crowd doesn't like anyone who suggests a radical shift in their traditional paradigm, but that's about it.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:39 pm)SteveII Wrote: Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote:

appeal to authority

Quote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

appeal to authority and popularity -within- an appeal to authority

Quote:Robert M. Price (an atheist)

appeal to authority

Quote: who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars

reassertion of the majority opinion

Quote:Michael Grant (a classicist)

appeal to authority

Quote: states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus'

poisons the well

Quote:Richard A. Burridge states:

appeal to authority

Quote: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

poisons the well

Jesus christ man just show us some fucking evidence!

(February 4, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Chad32 Wrote: For starters, Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messaiah.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca/resources-i...sh-messiah

The son of god was supposed to be called Emanuel, and be the prince of peace. Instead we have a guy named Jesus who says he comes to bring a sword. Not peace. He wants you to love your neighbor as yourself, but hate yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but doesn't speak against slavery, tells his followers to steal for him, and tells them to bring his enemies before him and kill them.

Except the Jews who think he is the messiah disagree. Here is a synopsis of their position and how the OT is compatible with Jesus as the Messiah.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/messiah

Your reference about sword is Jesus talking about the persecution the disciples would face. He did not tell them to take up a sword, but there was going to be violence and betrayal--even from family and friends.

Hate yourself? You'll have to expound on that. Perhaps read the context first.

Slavery? Steal? Kill? Can you provide references?

---

(February 4, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: appeal to authority

No, not quite. I said your claim that Jesus never existed would be a minority view--not making an argument of Jesus' existence. I have brought evidence why I consider you you to be in the minority. Do you have some evidence to show why this is not a minority view?

(February 4, 2015 at 7:52 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Is there a point in repeating yourself? Yes, I know that historians and scholars who devote themselves to the subject overwhelmingly agree that Jesus existed, despite the fact that they pretty much disagree on every other relevant inquiry we might pursue further to avoid an agnostic view on who Jesus was. That you cite secularists who disagree with me is not an argument. Hey look, a Catholic priest who believes Jesus didn't actually exist! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie
Does Brodie's story prove anything? Well, it proves that the in-crowd doesn't like anyone who suggests a radical shift in their traditional paradigm, but that's about it.

I'm sorry. There was several posts in a row that more than suggested I back up my position that believing Jesus never existed is a minority view.

Back to that. You dismissed my entire post by saying that whomever dreamed all this up had plenty of time since Jesus was "not a historical figure". If you believe there was a vast conspiracy, and we, for argument's sake, say that the early church had a library of world religions in which to copy its myths, do you have a reasons why someone would go through all that trouble?

Isn't it substantially more probably that the early church just believed what they said?

Quote:Hate yourself? You'll have to expound on that. Perhaps read the context first.

Slavery? Steal? Kill? Can you provide references?

Luke 14:26 - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Mark 12:31 - The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."

1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

How is one to love his neighbor if he buys and sells his neighbor? How is one to love his neighbor as himself, if he's supposed to hate himself?

Luke 19:26 - He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

That's a parable of ten Minas, where a king says it, but Jesus is obviously advocating it.

I read the verse about Jesus stealing a donkey, but he did say the people would say yes to it if asked. So I guess it wasn't necessarily stealing.

Not to mention there are people that claim Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh, but he didn't seem to think so. Someone asked him what was good, and he said why are you asking me? There's only one good, and that's god. There's also what he says before and during his crucifixion. Let not my will, but your will, be done.

(February 4, 2015 at 8:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, not quite. I said your claim that Jesus never existed would be a minority view--not making an argument of Jesus' existence. I have brought evidence why I consider you you to be in the minority. Do you have some evidence to show why this is not a minority view?

-have a cookie.

Yes Christianity is based on old myths, and they have the nerve to say their religion is the true religion lol.

How likely is it that Jesus existed? I doubt the probability is high enough to be interesting. When it comes to ancient history the probabilities you are going to get are very low. What do we have? Ancient anecdotes written down many years after the fact? Even if taken at face value, they're underwhelming. Nothing worth passionate commitment.

(February 4, 2015 at 8:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you believe there was a vast conspiracy, and we, for argument's sake, say that the early church had a library of world religions in which to copy its myths, do you have a reasons why someone would go through all that trouble?

That's really an easy one, since the jews took their holy books from regional myths. Gilgamesh, the culture of Ugarit, Babylon and Egypt. Early christians on the other hand were dominated by Greece and Rome and took their myths accordingly.

Add to the mix campfire tales that have been collected and embellished and you have the story. Regardless if a person named Jesus existed, he draws heavily from the Greek and Roman Pantheon. Even Bart Ehrman writes, whom you quoted earlier, writes about the fallacies entering the story. And he totally leaves out the political element, which was one of the main driving forces behind early christianity.

And then there's politics. When christianity became the state religion of what was left of the Roman empire, they tried to appeal to the masses. So Jesus' supposed birth date coincides with the Saturnalia, churches were built on pagan sites. The list of borrowed tidbits from other cults could be continued at nauseum.

I think there was something somewhere about the Assyrians attacking, and the reason they won was because Israel wasn't worshiping Yahweh enough. When in truth it's because the Assyrians were one of the first people who developed iron weapons while their enemies had bronze. Iron>bronze=win.