One question for Christians

[Mystical]

Oh no.. you didn't.. quote.. Christian Historians did you?

[Bad Writer]

Oh no.. you didn't.. quote.. Christian Historians did you?

Not contemporaries. No one in their right minds should give a flying shit.

[Mystical]

Forgive me for jumping the gun, Statler. I'm going to review what you posted.. I asked in genuineness and you are the first theist to ever answer me. For that I thank you abundantly, as it truly is a subject I'm interested in knowing more about..

Thanks again for your reply, I like you Old men

[Brakeman]

Even the beginning stories of jesus with the impossible star guidance system, strongly point to an imaginary being. Who were the three kings who honored the baby jesus and why was he forgotten by them for thirty years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsG3MxUd1jg

[YahwehIsTheWay]

How to Argue for The Historical Jesus

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

Are Jesus mythicists getting you down? Do they annoy you with their disruption of the free ride we get from the way history is currently written? Do you long for the good old days when we could simply silence this debate with the proper application racks, branding irons and burning stakes?

Well, while we aren't allowed to torture and murder the heretics anymore, we can at least employ tried and true methods to wearing down the skeptics and maintaining our hold on the history books. Just follow this simple formula:

Step 1: Ad Hominems, Appeals to Ridicule and Poisoning the Well
It's important to begin any arguments on The Historical Jesus with a strong opening salvo, shelling the other side thoroughly with ad hominems. Establish from the beginning that your opponent is a crack-pot, screw-ball, nut-job or conspiracy theorist. Express shock that someone would be so crazy as to deny such an "obvious historical reality".

Compliment these ad hominems with a few false comparisons. For example, suggest your opponent also believes in Dan Brown's books. Compare him/her to a holocaust denier (it never hurts to poison the well by flirting with Godwin). Doing so helps to prepare the ground for when you to the Burden-of-proof-shift later. With a bit of verbal slight of hand, you can switch roles with your opponent, becoming the grounded skeptic while he/she becomes the proponent of a crazy idea.

The good news for us is that there ARE crack pots in the Jesus myth camp. It's kind of like how there are those who think W Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and then there are the 9/11 Truthers. Both might be considered in the same camp and the apologist can gain in an argument by blurring the lines. With any luck, your opponent may make the critical mistake of citing "Zeitgeist", Acharya S, Frick and Gandy, and other crap that's out there.

Remember the apologist standby: the best defense is a good offense. Always be on the lookout for any chinks in the skeptics armor or any weak links in their arguments. When you find any, pounce on them and harp on them endlessly, even if this argument is retracted. Your objective is to poison the well and create the assumption that any weak links implies that the rest of the skeptic's position is also crap.

Step 2: The "Scholars Say" Shuffle
If your opponent is undeterred by the ad hominems and appeals to ridicule and demands that you produce evidence that The Historical Jesus existed, move to the Appeal to Authority. Claim that all scholars agree that Jesus existed. Fortunately, we still have enough pull that most scholars, even secular ones, are willing to assume the existence of Jesus to avoid any controversy.

If your opponent is able to mention the names of reputable scholars who do dispute the existence of The Historical Jesus, such as Robert Price, just use the No True Scotsman approach to dismiss them as "not a True Scholar ™". What is a True Scholar? One who accepts that Jesus existed, of course.

Now, your opponent may come up with the annoying argument that even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they firmly believe. This is why Appeal to Authority is technically a fallacy, since it can be used as a tactic to avoid providing any evidence. Nonetheless, you want to remain here in Step 2 for as long as you possibly can. A skilled apologist can stretch this out to a dozen back-and-forth posts before going to Step 3. You want to wear down both the skeptic and the audience as much as possible and the Appeal to Authority dovetails well with your earlier efforts to poison the well and shift the burden of proof.

Step 2a: The "Most Attested" Claim
You can stretch out the Scholars-Say-Shuffle by making the claim that Jesus is more attested in history than any other historical figure. Don't worry about the fact that it's not true. Say he's more attested than Julius Caesar. When the skeptic can produce a ton of evidence for Julius Caesar, say Jesus is more attested than Plato. When the skeptic can produce the writings of Plato, say Jesus is more attested than Alexander the Great. Keep mentioning other historical figures to keep the skeptic busy chasing down evidence for all these irrelevant characters. Eventually, you're sure to pick someone he/she can't find sufficient evidence for.

Also, be ready to make a variety of false comparisons. The witnesses for Julius Caesar are analogous to the dubious authorship of religious propagandists. The school of philosophy founded by Plato is analogous to a religion founded by Jesus.

Step 3: The Usual Suspects
Hopefully, you've worn down the skeptic and the audience before getting to this point. The evidence is actually rather thin but don't worry, with a little padding and always being ready to dance back to step 2, you can make it work.

Tacitus: This is the strongest piece of evidence for The Historical Jesus. It's only 100 years later and a reference so oblique that it doesn't mention Jesus by name and it has one known forgery (Chrestians was changed to "Christians") and Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procureator as governors in later centuries were known and it's so oblique that Tacitus could have been just taking Christian claims at face value. It has a lot of "little problems" but nothing so severe that it can be dismissed as easily as...

Josephus: You can shamelessly trot out the Testimonium Flavianum. Sure it's an obvious rank forgery that doesn't fit with the surrounding paragraphs and fires off all the salient bullet points of Christian theology in one paragraph in rapid-fire succession, delivered with all the zeal of a Sunday morning preacher even though Josephus was a Jew who remained so until the day he died. You can still keep him on the witness stand by claiming the paragraph is "partially authentic". When the skeptic asks if this assertion is backed by any pre-Eseubian copies, say "not exactly". When the skeptic asks if this assertion is backed by any pre-Eseubian Christians quoting the paragraph, say "not exactly". When the skeptic asks why you're so sure it's partially authentic, say "it uses words Josephus would have used and stuff."

You can also use the "Jamesian Reference" from Josephus ("brother of Jesus, James"). Hopefully, the skeptic won't have actually read the document and know the reference is to Jesus Bar Damneus.

Seutonius: He refers to "Chrestus" and Rome of the mid-1st century but hey, picky picky.

Bar Sarapion: He refers to a "wise king" of the Jews. Must be our boy.

Talmud: Sure it's a 4th century entry and refers to a 40 day trial and a "Jesus" (a fortunately common name) that had five diciples (none of them being familiar names with the Gospel character) but hey, close enough.

Thallus: His works are lost to us and we have no idea what he actually said but he is quoted by another 3rd century Christian Africanus as speaking on the eclipse that occurred when Jesus was crucified. Woo hoo!

The Gospels: They're historical documents! Are so! Are so!

The Early Church Fathers: Don't touch this one unless you really need to pad the list. A savvy skeptic may know there was a wild variety of early Christianities with an equally wild variety of ideas about who and what Jesus was and when he lived. Some thought he was crucified during the age of Trajan (circa 100 CE). Others thought he was crucified under the reign of Alexander Janneaus (circa 100 BC). The Bible itself condemns the "false Christians" who denied there was a flesh-and-blood Jesus in two different canonical epistles.

Return to "Schoalrs Say": If the skeptic shoots these pieces of evidence down, simply say, "well, the scholars don't agree with you" and dance back to step 2.

Step 4: "Ah Whaddaya Want?" or "The Incredible Shrinking Jesus"
This is the point where you solidify the shift of the burden of proof. Shrink Jesus down to where he'll nicely fall into the cracks of our knowledge of the time and place. Forget about "The Greatest Story Ever Told". He was just some obscure rabbi who had a small following and it's not reasonable to expect any contemporary scholar to have commented on him.

Hopefully, the skeptic won't bring up that in the Bible, Jesus had a ground-shaking famous and controversial ministry. He out did John the Baptist at his own gig. His fame spread far and wide to neighboring provinces. Herod Antipas asked if he was John the Baptist reborn. Rich and poor sought him out. The priests met on Passover Eve in an elaborate conspiracy to get rid of this guy. Forget about all that. Jesus was just some obscure wandering rabbi who was a religious teacher of some kind. Now prove he didn't exist!

Be ready to shift back in an instant if the skeptic questions the Thallus argument or the validity of the Gospels. That's when the ancient world was populated by fact-checking commandos that would have descended upon rabbis with military efficiency to cry "false!"

Step 5: "Hit the Reset Button"
If none of this works, just hit the reset button and ask questions already answered, present evidence already debunked and otherwise start the conversation all over again. This is called "Argumentum Ad Neuseum". Eventually, you win when the opponent gets tired and goes home.

Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

[Statler Waldorf]

What does one do to deserve genocide? What qualities can you enumerate that our "god given senses of right and wrong" will agree on that deserve genocide and it's related torture, death, and subsequent eternal torture?

Whether the reprobate agrees with the punishment or not is irrelevant. We do not ask convicted murderers, “Do you think we were too harsh sentencing you to life in prison?” Any crime against a perfect and infinite being is going to deserve an infinite punishment. We should have all just woken up already in Hell; so every breath we are allowed to take is a form of grace made possible by Christ’s work.

Wrong!

Ehrman agrees with me, not you.

"Jesus Never Existed" - Ken Humphrey (1)

Humphrey’s is not a historian, and possesses no degree in the field.

and Robert M. Price. (2)

Price is a Theologian and former minister, he is not a historian. His “Jesus Seminar” has been widely discredited by skeptic and Christian historians alike.

AND ME (3)

I do not know who you are, so that does not count. Judging by a few of your Biblical gaffs on here, I am not surprised you believe Jesus never existed though.

Harold Leidner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth.

Leidner was a patent attorney, he possessed no formal education on the subject matter. Could you imagine if I told you, “Evolution is false because this patent attorney says so!”? You’d have an aneurism; it is amusing how sloppy your scholarship becomes once you’re trying to argue for something you merely want to be true.

Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness

Anyone can write a book, Childs possesses no formal education on the subject matter, he’s not a historian.

Dennis MacDonald, 2000, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.

MacDonald is a Theologian, not a historian. He also does not support the idea that Jesus never existed as a historical figure; he merely argues that portions of the gospels were taken from previous works.

Burton L. Mack The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy.

I cannot find any information on Mack’s education, but he does not argue that Jesus never existed, so I guess that’s irrelevant.

Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud!

Amateur scholar with no formal education on the subject matter.

Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silberman, 2002, The Bible Unearthed

Neither man supports the idea that Jesus never existed as a historical figure.

Frank Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.

Zindler is not a historian; his degrees are in Biology and Geology. Nice try though.

Daniel Unterbrink, 2004, Judas the Galilean.

Merely a popular skeptic author, no formal education on the subject matter.

Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light.

Broadcaster and priest, not a historian.

Francesco Carotta 2005, Jesus Was Caesar.

Not a historian, no formal education on the subject matter and is considered to be a bit of a crackpot for espousing that Jesus was really Caesar. Wikipedia’s article on him says it all, this killed me…

“Carotta's work is generally ignored in academic circles.”

Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

Not a historian, has no formal education in the field. Anyone can write a book.

Michel Onfray Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism):

Not a historian, only has a degree in philosophy. I get the feeling you’re just tossing out names now hoping that they might stick.

Jay Raskin, 2006, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities

Not a historian, degree is in humanities.

Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth.

Not a historian, degree is in Theology.

Jan Irvin, Andrew Rutajit, 2006, Astrotheology and Shamanism

Irvin is not a historian; possess zero education in the field.

Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed).

Priest, not a historian.

Richard Carrier - Not the Impossible Faith and Sense and Goodness without God.

Blogger, no education in the field; not a historian.

D. M. Murdock (Acharya S) The Gospel According to Acharya S

Merely an author with no education in the field; not a historian.

Earl Doherty Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus

Doherty possesses no advanced degree in the field; I’ll give you credit though- he does possess a Bachelor’s degree in Ancient History. That’s not saying much though.

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy -The Jesus Mysteries

Neither man is educated in the field; so they’re not historians.

I was right; you cannot find two historians who’d argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. Yet, you believe in such a fringe idea…I wonder why?

I would bet that if you asked all the mormons if "Moroni" existed then they too would overwhelmingly agree that he did. We have been so flooded with the stupid mess of religiosity and with the underlying threat against dissension that the scholarly world has not had time to freely consider the possibility that he is completely fictional.

Nice argument from ignorance. “There’s overwhelming evidence proving Jesus was a myth, we just have not found it yet!” Christian and non-Christian scholars do not always agree, but they unanimously agree that Jesus existed, that should tell you something.

Consider how and where one becomes a "bible scholar." Colleges that fund a christian studies program would not be willing to continue to have one if the premise were shown that he does not exist. That wouldn't make the college benefactors very happy would it? Do "Historians" often work themselves out of a job?

It’s all a huge conspiracy! There are plenty of secular Universities with history departments who are filled with professors who all agree that Jesus existed.

Lastly, It matters not the least whittle what some self badged "historian" thinks. There is no qualification to be called a "Historian or bible scholar" It is simply someone who is studying the topic, nothing more.

Obviously you think that someone just has to call themselves a historian in order to be one, which is why you referenced bloggers, biologists, and priests rather than people with actual educations in history. I’ll stick to those who have actually been educated in the field of history.

The more telling glimpse into the truth can be seen when people ask for the evidence that Jesus was real, the Bart Erhmans of the world continue to stammer and provide nothing.

Bart Ehrman is part of the conspiracy now too? We have eye witness testimony, that’s something we lack in regards to nearly all other historical figures from that time period. Do you reject their existence as well? It’s obvious you only reject the existence of Jesus because you do not want him to be who he said he was.

There is a complete lack of contemporary art of jesus, despite the ubiquity on other major historical figures of the time. Why?
Evidence is what matters.

Christians were living in poverty and persecuted by Rome until Rome’s conversion, how were they going to produce any art that would last for thousands of years? Not only this but because Christians believe Jesus is God, they often will not make images of him in accordance with the Ten Commandments. We do not have contemporary art of most historical figures.

Oh no.. you didn't.. quote.. Christian Historians did you?

The self-proclaimed agnostic Bart Ehrman is now a Christian? News to me!

Not contemporaries. No one in their right minds should give a flying shit.

I don’t think that the word contemporary means what you think it means. Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, Peter and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus.

Even the beginning stories of jesus with the impossible star guidance system, strongly point to an imaginary being. Who were the three kings who honored the baby jesus and why was he forgotten by them for thirty years?

How am I supposed to take you seriously if you keep messing the Biblical account up? Where does it say that three kings visited Jesus? Secondly, please stop presenting YouTube videos as if they prove anything- you are only wasting all of our time. Anyone can post anything they like on YouTube, nearly every point in that video is factually inaccurate (there is no evidence that Horace had 12 disciples and so on).

---

Forgive me for jumping the gun, Statler. I'm going to review what you posted.. I asked in genuineness and you are the first theist to ever answer me. For that I thank you abundantly, as it truly is a subject I'm interested in knowing more about..

Thanks again for your reply, I like you Old men

This is precisely why you are one of my favorites on here :-)

[Bad Writer]

Actual proceedings of a person written in the framework of their actual existence would be considered contemporary, historical articles. This Jesus fellow has none of that, as anything written about him was done so decades after the fact.

This is simply an astute observation. However, if we are going to say that Jesus lived and accomplished all the wonders contained within the gospels, then it would follow that there would be well documented works by the many scribes and authorities of the time that could lend further corroborating evidence. As this is completely lacking, we then can surmise that if even if someone by this name existed, his actions were probably so minor that only a handful of people only ever knew of them (which then contradicts the scope of his works described in the NT).

So either he was great and didn't get the recognition he should have had at the time, or he was minor, and therefore the gospel writers were greatly exaggerating his influence in order to spread his influence postmortem. Please explain this paradox by showing how the gospel writers had no need for embellishment.

[Statler Waldorf]

Actual proceedings of a person written in the framework of their actual existence would be considered contemporary, historical articles. This Jesus fellow has none of that, as anything written about him was done so decades after the fact.

No, a contemporary source is any source written by someone who lived at the same time as the person being written about. Mark, Jude, Matthew, Luke, Peter, Paul, and John all lived at the same time as Jesus, they are therefore contemporary sources.

So you also reject the existence of Julius Caesar? Plato? Aristotle? Homer? Cicero? Socrates?

“I can assure you, as a historian, that whatever else you might say about Jesus, he certainly existed.” -Dr. Bart Ehrman
“I don’t think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus”- Dr. Bart Ehrman

This is one of the most prominent scholars in the skeptic community today, and he thinks your position is downright absurd. Why?

This is simply an astute observation. However, if we are going to say that Jesus lived and accomplished all the wonders contained within the gospels, then it would follow that there would be well documented works by the many scribes and authorities of the time that could lend further corroborating evidence.

…and there is. His works are documented in the greatest attested work of antiquity, the New Testament.

As this is completely lacking, we then can surmise that if even if someone by this name existed, his actions were probably so minor that only a handful of people only ever knew of them (which then contradicts the scope of his works described in the NT).

That’s a logical non-sequitur. We have greater attestation to the works of Jesus than any other historical figure of that time period. That’s remarkable for the son of a carpenter who never held an office.

So either he was great and didn't get the recognition he should have had at the time, or he was minor, and therefore the gospel writers were greatly exaggerating his influence in order to spread his influence postmortem. Please explain this paradox by showing how the gospel writers had no need for embellishment.

That’s another logical non-sequitur. Jesus would have been a great embarrassment to the Jewish leadership; I would not expect them to write about him. “Yes, there was this common Jew who claimed to be our Messiah, and he did great wonders just like the Messiah was prophesized to do, and he fulfilled all of our messianic prophecies, so we killed him just like scripture foretold that we would.”
Are you seriously suggesting that those who knew Jesus, would embellish his accomplishments all the while knowing that this would lead to their brutal deaths in a very anti-Christian Roman empire? That’s not even a remote possibility; people do not die for what they know to be false.

[DeistPaladin]

My thoughts on "The Historical Jesus":

1. There is no proof.
2. Christian mythology doesn't count as "proof".
3. The Christians themselves have never told a coherent story in the first place, let alone provided any reason to believe it.
4. The picture gets even murkier when you look at Christian beliefs of the first few centuries.

So either:
1. Jesus was an insignificant rabbi that nobody paid any attention to and who wrote nothing of himself and his own teachings and, against all odds, was deified with fanciful legends, except that nobody could agree on what he said, taught or did, including what are now considered canonical sources, never mind all the myriad "heterodox Christians" who were so divergent as to make modern Christianity vs. Islam look like petty theological hair-splitting, so good luck ever knowing anything about him.

2. He's an urban legend.

[DeistPaladin]

Are you seriously suggesting that those who knew Jesus, would embellish his accomplishments all the while knowing that this would lead to their brutal deaths in a very anti-Christian Roman empire? That’s not even a remote possibility; people do not die for what they know to be false.

Some problems with this argument:

1. You're using folklore to prove mythology.
We're all familiar with the classic Hollywood imagery of Christians being tortured and killed by dastardly Roman pagans and yet they held their head high and looked forward to being united with their celestial savior (*cue the swelling orchestral music to enhance the drama*). Got any proof that it happened outside Christian folklore?

2. Yes, people die all the time for what they either know or should know to be false.
Don't ask me to explain why it happens. I just know that it does happen even in today's world which should be less superstitious and more educated.

David Koresh. The Heaven's Gate cult. Jim Jones. The list goes on. Modern day cults where leaders and followers alike lay down their lives for absolutely crazy beliefs. And these things happen today. You think Judea of the first few centuries, with all the superstitions of the primitive world, would be any less prone to this kind of crazy behavior?

To dismiss modern cultists as crazy but early Christians as "knowing the truth" is classic special pleading.