An Important Recap on Modern Scholarship

[Minimalist]

[Baqal]

Isn't it funny that Christians are using the fact that Jesus' corpse has never been discovered to prove his existence?

[Minimalist]

To quote from the article:

“The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.” John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

Jesus can be whatever a believer wants him to be...whenever he needs him to be it.

Hard to differentiate 'jesus' from a lump of silly putty in that regard.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Isn't it funny that Christians are using the fact that Jesus' corpse has never been discovered to prove his existence?

I actually, truly had a Christian tell me once, 'There's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Abraham Lincoln!'

My reply was something like, 'Luv, if you've got photographs of Jesus, trot 'em out - you'll make a fortune!'

Boru

[Minimalist]

[CapnAwesome]

Isn't it funny that Christians are using the fact that Jesus' corpse has never been discovered to prove his existence?

The argument from an empty tomb is one of the worst arguments ever.

---

Also does that article reference 'Zeitgeist: The Move'? Probably the worst pile of conspiracy theory bullshit ever produced.

[Natachan]

Still waiting on the records of his trial and execution, btw. Because that account in the bible is a load of bunk. That isn't the Pontius Pilot I know, and it's pretty clear he gospel authors had never known him or talked with anyone who had dealings with him.

[CapnAwesome]

Still waiting on the records of his trial and execution, btw. Because that account in the bible is a load of bunk. That isn't the Pontius Pilot I know, and it's pretty clear he gospel authors had never known him or talked with anyone who had dealings with him.

You'll be waiting a long time. Contrary to what some people claim, the Romans most certainly did not keep immaculate records (that survive to this day!) on every person that they executed. I think the fact that Jesus has no primary sources is a weak argument for his non-existence made by people with little historical knowledge. Tons of super important historical figures don't have primary sources, including Aristotle and even Ghenghis Khan who conquered most of the known world. The ancient world is not a very thoroughly documented place and the claim that there should be better records on something as specific as a specific person's trail and execution is absurd.

None of that means that Jesus existed or didn't exist. Personally I find it to be a fairly irrelevant question, if there is a historical basis for Jesus it's so heavily fictionalized that it might as well be made up entirely. Not really as relevant a question as you'd think.

[Minimalist]

No...but you'd think that if there was even the rumor that a man was executed by a Roman magistrate and came back from the dead that someone would have commented on it if only to lampoon it.

Yet..... nary a word.... until the second century.

Which, btw, happens to be when Celsus and Lucian of Samosata DID start lampooning it.

[Mudhammam]

You don't place ANY of the NT books in the first-century, Min?