The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[Mr Clingford]

Let's not pretend that everyone in antiquity is historically (un)verifiable to the same degree. For many historical figures there is extemporaneous documentation that comes down to us through history. That is not the case for Jesus.

So you think that you are a better historian than the esteemed atheist academic Robin Lane Fox?

 

[hgc]

So you think that you are a better historian than the esteemed atheist academic Robin Lane Fox?

I don't know who that is, and couldn't give a rat's ass if he's an atheist. I know that historians disagree on these points. So what? You can evaluate the evidence with your own eyes and make your own judgement. Perhaps if I came to know more about this atheist academic, I may come to esteem him greatly, but for now I'll sidestep your appeal to atheist authority.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I don't know who that is, and couldn't give a rat's ass if he's an atheist. I know that historians disagree on these points. So what? You can evaluate the evidence with your own eyes and make your own judgement. Perhaps if I came to know more about this atheist academic, I may come to esteem him greatly, but for now I'll sidestep your appeal to atheist authority.

Would you point me in the direction of academic historians who don't think there was a historical Jesus.

One can evaluate the evidence and make your own judgement but unless one is trained and experienced in that particular field it might not be as valid as the experts. I happen to have a couple of Robin Lane Fox's books from my study of Philosophy and Theology at university where his work is far from way out.

 

[Belz...]

Come off it - don't be afraid to admit that it is much more likely than not that there was a Jesus bloke; it's rather more of a woo conspiracy theory to argue that there wasn't.

You don't need to resort to insults.

I don't see it as more or less likely that Jesus existed as a real person, any more than I think it's more or less likely that a real person inspired the character Hercules.

 

[Belz...]

Got to make things clear, you know, or you might lose some atheist credentials.

Careful. Your bias is showing.

Yes, there certainly are lots of old threads on the topic. Considering how little cold hard evidence there is for almost anyone in antiquity I am not at all surprised.

There's plenty of evidence for far less influencial characters.

 

[Mr Clingford]

You don't need to resort to insults.

I'm trying more to be bantering than insulting but then you go and post this:

I don't see it as more or less likely that Jesus existed as a real person, any more than I think it's more or less likely that a real person inspired the character Hercules.

I know I won't change your mind but if the academic consensus is that Jesus existed then isn't it acting like a woo to deny the obvious?

I mean no offense to you, the person, but instead towards your view - sceptics are supposed to go with the evidence which supports a historical Jesus. But I am open to reading new evidence.

 

[cyborg]

I know I won't change your mind but if the academic consensus is that Jesus existed then isn't it acting like a woo to deny the obvious?

The academic consensus is unfortunately quite biased towards the Christian viewpoint.

 

[hgc]

I know I won't change your mind but if the academic consensus is that Jesus existed then isn't it acting like a woo to deny the obvious?

I think the evidence for Jesus is way better than the evidence for Hercules, since it comes from within a few decades of his alleged life. I would not characterize the academic view on this as consensus. One atheist historian does not a consensus make.

 

[ceo_esq]

There's plenty of evidence for far less influencial characters.

On the other hand, there's little evidence for far more influential (during their lifetimes) characters. Mr. Clingford is right that relatively few of the people known to us from antiquity are known from evidence that is regarded by historians as much stronger than the evidence in favor of a historical Jesus.

 

[flume]

I was raised Christian (not Fundamentalist) and I was a believer until I was 17. When I stopped believing, I felt a real loss and I hoped for years that some insight would connect me to belief again. That didn't happen. But I still have a very clear story of Jesus in my mind.

I do think it's reasonable to assume that the books in the Bible were based on some real person, maybe a real person who was charismatic and kind and who suffered. Maybe someone worth knowing. But I find no reason to think that such a real person would have been the same as the Jesus in the story in my mind. The story told in the Bible through whatever process of filtering, editing, homogenizing, embellishing over the years, plus the way the church and its ministers have amplified on the text to make it feel immediate, has its own fictional truth. I 'believe' the Jesus story in the way I believe in Frodo. If I were told that Frodo was loosely based on one of Tolkein's friends from his youth, even a particularly valiant person, I would still not equate the fictional mythical Frodo with an actual person who inspired an author to create the character.

 

[ceo_esq]

I know that historians disagree on these points.

Technically yes, but not so much. I can't think of a major academic expert in a relevant field, active today, who regards the existence of Jesus as historically unlikely - there might be a couple, but it's something of a fringe opinion.

 

[Belz...]

I know I won't change your mind but if the academic consensus is that Jesus existed then isn't it acting like a woo to deny the obvious?

Obvious ? Please, by all means provide ONE piece of evidence that Jesus existed -- outside of the bibble, of course.

I mean no offense to you, the person, but instead towards your view - sceptics are supposed to go with the evidence which supports a historical Jesus. But I am open to reading new evidence.

There is none.

 

[Belz...]

Mr. Clingford is right that relatively few of the people known to us from antiquity are known from evidence that is regarded by historians as much stronger than the evidence in favor of a historical Jesus.

Do you have examples in mind ? Because I know of no evidence whatsoever for Jesus' existence aside from the "holy" book.

 

[ceo_esq]

I 'believe' the Jesus story in the way I believe in Frodo. If I were told that Frodo was loosely based on one of Tolkein's friends from his youth, even a particularly valiant person, I would still not equate the fictional mythical Frodo with an actual person who inspired an author to create the character.

Of course you wouldn't. But imagine that instead of being about Frodo, a Hobbit in Middle Earth at the end of the Third Age, The Lord of the Rings had been about "Geoff", a 16-year-old boy attending King Edward's School in Birmingham in 1911, who (let's say) is described as being a genuine psychic. If you were then told that "Geoff" the character was derived from Geoffrey, Tolkien's old school chum, you'd be more inclined to identify "Geoff" with Geoffrey underneath the clearly magical or ahistorical elements (such as the supposed genuineness of "Geoff's" psychic ability).

 

[The Atheist]

I know I won't change your mind but if the academic consensus is that Jesus existed then isn't it acting like a woo to deny the obvious?

I must commend you on your restraint!*

If the roles had been reversed, we'd be tearing you to pieces.

Because, ya smart Pommy, as you well know, you're right. When the roles were reversed on this at the Ship and I suggested Jesus might not have even existed, it was well and truly confirmed that the vast majority of all academic, atheist and christian history suggests that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact, walk the earth.

It by no means confirms that he did live, but if you accept such historical figures as So-crates and Julius Caesar as real characters, then you must accept Jesus.

As a person.

There ya go Clingy!

(But I'm a christian apologist, so nobody will give a toss.)




*MrC: "I say old chap, that's almost "woo-ish", isn't it?"

TA: "Ya dumb s##ts! Of course he was a real bloke, how ####ing stupid are you?"

 

[The Atheist]

The academic consensus is unfortunately quite biased towards the Christian viewpoint.

Given that the vast majority of historians throughout the last couple of thousand years have been christians, that shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

 

[The Atheist]

Of course you wouldn't. But imagine that instead of being about Frodo, a Hobbit in Middle Earth at the end of the Third Age, The Lord of the Rings had been about "Geoff", a 16-year-old boy attending King Edward's School in Birmingham in 1911, who (let's say) is described as being a genuine psychic. If you were then told that "Geoff" the character was derived from Geoffrey, Tolkien's old school chum, you'd be more inclined to identify "Geoff" with Geoffrey underneath the clearly magical or ahistorical elements (such as the supposed genuineness of "Geoff's" psychic ability).

That's potentially the best analogy I've ever seen.

Cheers (& nominated)

 

[ceo_esq]

Obvious ? Please, by all means provide ONE piece of evidence that Jesus existed -- outside of the bibble, of course.

Well, the New Testament isn't really a unity, of course; it's a collection of diverse texts about Jesus. There are other such texts that didn't make it in, as you know, but most of the surviving ones are believed to have been composed later than the ones anthologized in the New Testament. I'm curious why you're so interested in texts that didn't make it into the anthology to the exclusion of the texts that did.

 

[edge]

It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Which is all right, but the harm they do all of there lives, such a shame.
We just witnessed a 93 year old man do this and then die.


Belz writes,

Do you have examples in mind ? Because I know of no evidence whatsoever for Jesus' existence aside from the "holy" book.

This link is a story that I posted on the best evidence thread.
It comes to people in a personal way, but with out the instructions in the bible as a guide to achieve the proof you'll never get it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2306811#post2306811
Then scroll up to edge # 152 and read.

 

[hgc]

It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Which is all right, but the harm they do all of there lives, such a shame.
We just witnessed a 93 year old man do this and then die.

I don't doubt you when you say you witnessed this in one case, but you imply in your first sentence that it's standard practice. Ridiculous. Even if so, what harm do non-believers do that believers don't?