(July 11, 2015 at 11:20 am)pocaracas Wrote: There you go with your biased scholarship... it only became less biased within the last few decades and this was too late.

Nope. This ain't the way professional historians...the ones with REAL degrees drawing paychecks from REAL universities...see it, poca.

Bart Ehrman is a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill and a world-renowned NT scholar. He writes:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement--all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. [emphasis added]In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.

“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist [emphasis added]. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty about him [emphasis added]” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.).

Now, after reading that, poca, can you honestly say that there is "bias" among the professional scholars who accept the existence of Jesus as a fact of history?

(July 11, 2015 at 11:25 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: A gift for you, Randy.

Look up false equivocation. Attacking the head spin argument from that angle is probably your best bet. Good luck. If you need some help...ask someone else.

A historical Jesus is necessary for the existence of magic Jesus, but it is absolutely and utterly not sufficient.

This conflation is tiresome. None of us give a fuck if there was a real Jesus, it makes no difference.

It would give one "pause" if they had any actual evidence instead of merely a deep-seated desire to think that their fairy tales were true...based on nothing but those fairy tales themselves.

That is the rub.

(July 11, 2015 at 11:36 am)robvalue Wrote: A historical Jesus is necessary for the existence of magic Jesus, but it is absolutely and utterly not sufficient.

This conflation is tiresome. None of us give a fuck if there was a real Jesus, it makes no difference.

Ooooooh yes, you do. Maybe not you personally, but you atheists, in general.

You want to be able to simply write Jesus off as a legend, a figment of someone's imagination, a conspiracy of delusional fools because that is the easiest way to respond to Jesus.

Otherwise, you have to think.

I've never heard one atheist ever who actually cares. Where are you getting this data from?

Randy,

bart Wrote:He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic

As in "he may have been the teacher of righteousness".
What things can bart tell us about Jesus that we can't tell about the teacher?

Quote:Otherwise, you have to think.

Whereas you fucking morons wave your fairy tales around and don't ever have to think.

You're an asshole, Randy.  Beyond hope.

Is there a single atheist on this forum who feels it is really important to them to deny the possibility Jesus was a historical figure, further than simply debating it as an interesting point?

Is there one anywhere?

"You atheists" is a strong accusation so I want names, figures, dates, figs, almonds, apples, bananas and all the irrelevant documentation.

(July 11, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Otherwise, you have to think.

If your god could survive scrutiny, there'd be no such thing as atheism.