Can you still be an atheist after this?

[Statler Waldorf]

Is that right? Then where do all those 'Jesus is a myth' theories come from? Sports psychologists?

Close…the Jesus Myth was popularized by George Albert Wells who was a professor of German not a historian.

I think one of the most popular theories is that there was a man, or perhaps several men, who said or did SOME of the things described, with the rest tacked on either from pre-existing myths or for dramatic effect, or to retroactively prove the OT correct. This would make him (at least partially) a myth.

Evidence? Actually the most popular theory is that the gospels accurately describe the historical figure of Jesus.

Certainly no historian who didn't have a vested interest in the Bible being true has ever suggested there was anything other than circumstantial evidence for things such as the resurrection. And yet historians of all walks have confirmed the existence of figures such as Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Pizarro, Hitler, Tutankhamun and The Incredible Hulk. ISN'T THAT WEIRD?

---

Not weird at all, can you name a historian who does not have a vested interest in scripture being untrue who denies the resurrection of Christ?

You're right Stat, I had a really hard time finding a historian who thought Jesus was a myth. I might need to lie down.

You found an 18th century French philosopher who thought Jesus may have been a myth, wow very impressive. Here is where Rhythm is supposed to chastise you for using too old of sources; of course he won’t because he likes double standards.

---

“This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous 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.”

- Michael Grant, historian and atheist

“The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.”

- Will Durant, historian and atheist

“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.”

- Rudolf Bultmann, historian and atheist

“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.”

-Robert Van Voost, historian and secularist

“Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. “

“Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community.”


- Graham Stanton, Chair of New Testament Studies at Cambridge University

---

Why would I even bother.

Well usually when you make a claim it’s proper to try and back it up with at least something, but for a liar such as yourself I know very well why you won’t back it up, you can’t.

Classic Stat - turning a phrase so that it looks like I said one thing when my entire point was in a completely different direction.

Classic Cinjin, unable to articulate his arguments to save his life.

you have never won a debate on this site.

According to whom? You? LOL

and I was merely pointing out that you were the Pot calling the Kettle black with that absurd claim that atheists throw out ridiculous comparisons hoping that one sticks. Go play in your pen, sheep.

You didn’t point out anything, you merely asserted something and then failed to provide any evidence to back it up you dishonest goat.

As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.

What critics?

All the historians who seem to agree about Jesus are Christian scholars.

Wrong, see above I cited several atheist historians who think the Jesus Myth crowd are loons.

[Epimethean]

Does suggesting that jesus may have lived and been a human being directly equate to stating that he was divine, Stat?

[Minimalist]

Evidence? Actually the most popular theory is that the gospels accurately describe the historical figure of Jesus.

Only among fundie idiots, Waldork.

Face facts...even you clowns can't agree on what your fucking bible says. That's why there are 30,000+ variants of xtians each claiming to be right.

[Statler Waldorf]

Does suggesting that jesus may have lived and been a human being directly equate to stating that he was divine, Stat?

You are moving the goalposts. We are talking about people who claim Jesus never existed at all here.

Only among fundie idiots, Waldork.

Aww, did I hurt your feelings by presenting atheist historians who think Jesus Mythers like you are complete loons?

Face facts...even you clowns can't agree on what your fucking bible says. That's why there are 30,000+ variants of xtians each claiming to be right.

This proves what? People tend to interpret things differently, sounds like a human problem not a Bible problem.

[Dan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUkM2aqXwj4

There is not just life after death, but life in it's fullest ! Life is not perfect because of sin, sn seperates us from knowing God and only Jesus Christ can set you freee from sin. There is no way to prove God unless you except Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, because nothing else can break the barrier between us and God! Take freely today the gift of 'the River of Life' and turn from your sin, all who look to Jesus will be saved and nothing in the physical world can come close to the fullness of life that 'YOU' can have in the Kingdom of Heaven if you turn to Jesus! Please my friends do not harden your hearts because I know that this hope is real and God loves each one of us so much, He wants to give us eternal life, joy, goodness and completion. Nobody is too lost to be saved from their sin, and I know that whatever you may believe, you would want this to be true; to be completely happy and alive and live forever so let it, let it be true for you today and turn to Jesus, then you will see that it is not a false hope. No one can possibly comprehend how great it will be in the Kingdom of Heaven, but there is only one way, and that is through Jesus, He is the bridge between man and God and if you seek Him with all your heart you will find Him, and you will not only have a certain hope of Heaven, but also much hope of goodness in this life.

I only want to help people find their God and the free gift of 'the River of Life' which He will certainly give to all those who accept Jesus. There is no everlasting hope and everlasting life outside of Jesus Christ. If you want to know how great it feels to know God then seek Him with all your heart and you will indeed find Him, just as I did ! God will heal the brokenness inside you if only you let Him, no matter what it may be. If you think this is a false hope then seek Him with all your heart, tell Him you're sorry, then when you are born-again in the love and spirit of God, you you know that Lord Jesus Christ is indeed for real and all the hope I have spoken to you about is real, and it is there for everyone, the free gift of salvation and eternal life with our God! Haleluiah !

[ElDinero]

Ok, so to remind the viewers at home, we started here:

You’d have a tough time finding one historian who believes Jesus was a myth no matter whether the historian was a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever.

So to recap, the personal leanings of the historian don't matter, whether they are Christian or not. We will have a very tough time finding someone who believes Jesus was a myth. Hope we're all clear on that.

*El Dinero easily finds just such a thing*

Now watch as famous illusionist Statler Waldorf uses distraction techniques to move the goalposts!

Not weird at all, can you name a historian who does not have a vested interest in scripture being untrue who denies the resurrection of Christ?

You found an 18th century French philosopher who thought Jesus may have been a myth, wow very impressive.

So from 'you won't be able to find anyone' it moves to 'that person doesn't count because of their personal leanings which I previously said were irrelevant'. And why does the fact that they were French or lived in the 18th century matter? Hilarious changing of the criteria, and a convenient ignoring of the fact that I told you he was the first name among several just among one Wikipedia article, which as we all know should be used for a rough overview of subjects. I'm quite confident that I would be able to find many more examples if I searched further. But since I've already conclusively disproved the original challenge above, is there any need?

I don't give a toss about the rest of your boring argument that contains your usual mental gymnastics, doublespeak and logical fallacies. But try not to make stupid statements that can be refuted using Wikipedia in the space of two minutes.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Ok, so to remind the viewers at home, we started here:

You’d have a tough time finding one historian who believes Jesus was a myth no matter whether the historian was a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever.

So to recap, the personal leanings of the historian don't matter, whether they are Christian or not. We will have a very tough time finding someone who believes Jesus was a myth. Hope we're all clear on that.

*El Dinero easily finds just such a thing*

Now watch as famous illusionist Statler Waldorf uses distraction techniques to move the goalposts!

Not weird at all, can you name a historian who does not have a vested interest in scripture being untrue who denies the resurrection of Christ?

You found an 18th century French philosopher who thought Jesus may have been a myth, wow very impressive.

So from 'you won't be able to find anyone' it moves to 'that person doesn't count because of their personal leanings which I previously said were irrelevant'. And why does the fact that they were French or lived in the 18th century matter? Hilarious changing of the criteria, and a convenient ignoring of the fact that I told you he was the first name among several just among one Wikipedia article, which as we all know should be used for a rough overview of subjects. I'm quite confident that I would be able to find many more examples if I searched further. But since I've already conclusively disproved the original challenge above, is there any need?

I don't give a toss about the rest of your boring argument that contains your usual mental gymnastics, doublespeak and logical fallacies. But try not to make stupid statements that can be refuted using Wikipedia in the space of two minutes.

---

Well I have seen no evidence that the man you came up with ever questioned the existence of Jesus, but rather he questioned the historical accuracy of what we understand of Jesus. I apologize though; I should have included the word “modern” or words “alive today” when I had said that. I just assumed it was pretty apparent to most people. I had no idea you’d bring up some philosopher who merely questioned the historicity of Christ not even his existence and who had been dead for 200 years.

[The Grand Nudger]

Forgive me for not realizing that you'd bring up the ramblings of people who had been dead for two thousand years (and many more) when asked about our origins.

[Statler Waldorf]

Forgive me for not realizing that you'd bring up the ramblings of people who had been dead for two thousand years (and many more) when asked about our origins.

Appeal to novelty again, you really like that fallacy don't you?

[ElDinero]

Guys, take a picture. That's about as close as we'll get to SW admitting he was lying and moving the goalposts like an intellectually dishonest fuckwit.

---

Statler and his three boyfriends on an average day: