Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Mojo]

For the second part, it depends what you're working with. "schizophrenic" draws up images of a dude shaking back and forth and talking about aliens he just met and how the radio is telling him to burn things. Paul and Hubbard are not anything like that.

Well, Paul woudn't be talking about radios for obvious reasons, and aliens were also not a common concept at the time.

As a general rule, people who hear voices have often been regarded as mad, unless they claim that the voices are God.

 

[tsig]

As mentioned, the biblical evidence is sufficient that not a single biblical scholar at an accredited university doubts the existence of Jesus.


I've said what the evidence is. It is applying the historical method to the sources available. Every relevant scholar at an accredited university who has done this concludes that Jesus existed. For this reason I call it undisputed.


Contrariwise, GB hasn't posted a single biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts the existence of Jesus. He is now trying to ignore this point, and vaguely implying that my standards are too high. The biblical scholar on the top of his list (who does meet the criteria) is currently working on a book aiming to debunk the Jesus-as-myth theories, so he shot himself in the foot a bit.

If you say it often enough.....

 

[tsig]

As I have already said, many parts of the NT are sincere history. Moby Dick is not sincere history. The gospels are accounts from "believers" and thus are skewed in favour of Jesus, and we need to use the historical method in order to find out what likely happened and what likely didn't. We treat the sources in the same way we would treat sources about other minor philosophers (and even some major ones). Our sources for Apollonius of Tyana are shockingly bad, and written by people who claim he could perform miracles, but when we read them it is clear they are sincere historical accounts and need to be treated as such.

Are we talking about the Great Pumpkin here?

 

[Akhenaten]

If you say it often enough.....

. . . you start sounding like a bloody parrot.




I know you're too kind to have been thinking that, but I'm feeling a little uncharitable tonight.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/PizzaMenu.jpg[/qimg]​

That is a most sincere post.

 

[phelix]

If you say it often enough.....

Hopefully it'll sink in. Two people have challenged the claim but been unable to name a single example of one who doubts Jesus' existence. I suspect many people on here would find it unusual to be in a position supported by 0% of the experts, so it is a fact that would need to be confronted, and I imagine that would be tough to do.

Are we talking about the Great Pumpkin here?

I think that's an American reference. Could you rephrase that?

 

[phelix]

Well, Paul woudn't be talking about radios for obvious reasons, and aliens were also not a common concept at the time.

As a general rule, people who hear voices have often been regarded as mad, unless they claim that the voices are God.

Heh, yup. There are very similar lines to this, such as "If you talk to god, you're praying. If god talks back, you're schizophrenic". Though they were originally aimed as criticisms of psychiatry.

As a general rule, people who have encounters with people who have died are not mad. It is not uncommon among the grieving, troubled or those prone to magical thinking.
And at the time, pretty much everyone was prone to magical thinking.

 

[tsig]

Oppressed people looking for a way out will invent tales of a saviour who will break the bondage of oppression and set in a new kingdom. Such were the woes of the first century Jews that they began looking in their scriptures for just such a servant of god, and they found it in Isaiah and other verses. Hence the birth of christianity. But it wasn't called that until Paul of Tarsus came along and he had his well know hallucination on the road to Damascus.
If the ramblings of a schizophrenic are to be believed, the Hubbard should also be believed, or Joseph Smith for that matter. At least Smith had a dozen signed affidavits that saw the golden tablets.

Ghost dance anyone?

The Ghost Dance (also called the Ghost Dance of 1890) was a religious movement which was incorporated into numerous Native American belief systems. The traditional ritual used in the Ghost Dance, the circle dance, has been used by many Native Americans since prehistoric times. In accordance with the prophet Jack Wilson (Wovoka)'s teachings, it was first practiced for the Ghost Dance among the Nevada Paiute in 1889. The practice swept throughout much of the Western United States, quickly reaching areas of California and Oklahoma. As the Ghost Dance spread from its original source, Native American tribes synthesized selective aspects of the ritual with their own beliefs. This process often created change in both the society that integrated it, and in the ritual itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

 

[Akhenaten]

If you read the gospel of Mark, it is difficult to be sure "what then". Read it without the last few verses which are forged, and you have a story which is a very bumpy ride and ends abruptly with no clear happy ending. Paul of Tarsus was very good at rectifying the situation. He came up with a very appealing theology, and managed to turn Christianity from failure to fairy tale. My guess is 99% of modern Christians don't realise that their religion is based on the beliefs of Paul, not of Jesus or anyone else.

We do though.

All the New Testament is evidence of is the beliefs and teachings of early communities of believers spread about Asia Minor in the teachings of a man called Jesus during the first few centuries BCE. The majority of modern Christian thoughts and beliefs (anything after say 150 BCE) is actually the result of the teachings of one man and he is not Jesus. He is Paul of Tarsus (St Paul). By rights, Christianity should be called Paulism or Paulianity because it has far more to do with Paul’s own ideas and beliefs than any that Jesus may have taught.

DOC, you seem to believe that opinion is evidence.

On that basis, it's my opinion that the Jesus of the NT never existed, but his character was "knitted" together from the stories about other itinerant preachers, wandering self-proclaimed Messiahs and possibly even the occcasional terrorist. There was a lot of it about, contributing to the dangers.

This story was created by the "real" inventor of Christianity - Paul (if he existed... ). In reality, maybe the religion ought to be called Paulianity?

Therefore - that's my opinion, so I put it forward as evidence.

How did we muddle through before you arrived to save us?

 

[phelix]

My guess is 99% of modern Christians don't realise that their religion is based on the beliefs of Paul, not of Jesus or anyone else.

We do though.

I didn't say you didn't...

 

[welshdean]

My guess is 99% of modern Christians don't realise that their religion is based on the beliefs of Paul, not of Jesus or anyone else.

Duuude, you really need to read the thread man. We've been over (quite a few times) most of what your saying. That may be one (just one mind you) reason why people are getting a little snarky! Take a look at this post from Sept 2010, it addresses almost every point you've made to date.

DOC,

You've effectively stated that you'd dealt with my points regarding the apostle martyrs.

To summarise, you said that times were dangerous, and it was especially difficult for Christians when Nero was on the throne. Because of this, oral tradition regarding the martyrs is probably true. Now I'm prepared to accept that times were hard - I've read a lot of Roman History - but that's totally begging the real question.

I'll skip over the thought that this was deliberate, but you've ignored the main point of my argument.

Skim back to post #15633, and you'll see what oral tradition has said about the martyrdom of Simon the Zealot, who apparently managed to die seven times.

Now unless Simon was far better than JC at the resurrection game, only one of these can be true.

So - as I asked before - please can you tell us when, where and how did Simon die?

I'd also like to know on what grounds you have reached that conclusion.

DOC, you seem to believe that opinion is evidence.

On that basis, it's my opinion that the Jesus of the NT never existed, but his character was "knitted" together from the stories about other itinerant preachers, wandering self-proclaimed Messiahs and possibly even the occcasional terrorist. There was a lot of it about, contributing to the dangers.

This story was created by the "real" inventor of Christianity - Paul (if he existed... ). In reality, maybe the religion ought to be called Paulianity?

Therefore - that's my opinion, so I put it forward as evidence.

ETA: Beaten by Tutankhamun's Dad. I like the way your mind works Oh Great Pharaoh.

 

[tsig]

Hopefully it'll sink in. Two people have challenged the claim but been unable to name a single example of one who doubts Jesus' existence. I suspect many people on here would find it unusual to be in a position supported by 0% of the experts, so it is a fact that would need to be confronted, and I imagine that would be tough to do.


I think that's an American reference. Could you rephrase that?

First hit on Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pumpkin

According to Linus, on Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of a pumpkin patch he deems the most "sincere", then flies through the air delivering toys to all the good little children in the world. Linus further believes that the Great Pumpkin is very sensitive and easily offended and, as such, would choose to bypass anyone who doubts or denies his existence. Therefore, in writing to the Great Pumpkin, while trying to convince him that your pumpkin patch is sincere, you are not to ask for anything specific, but wait for and accept whatever he brings.

 

[phelix]

Duuude, you really need to read the thread man. We've been over (quite a few times) most of what your saying. That may be one (just one mind you) reason why people are getting a little snarky! Take a look at this post from Sept 2010, it addresses almost every point you've made to date.

Two people responded in the same way now, so maybe I was unclear. I wasn't saying that you guys are not aware that Paul played the largest influence in Christianity. I was saying that most modern Christians don't recognise this fact... which is what I said...

People are getting snarky but actual substantial counterarguments have been sparse. My basic points are:
1) It is right to apply the historical methods to the sources we have
2) This leads us to a number of conclusions, most basically that Jesus existed
3) Everyone who teaches the historical critical approach to the bible in an accredited university recognises this.

The main counterarguments have been:
To 1)
A: It is wrong to apply the historical method to sources from followers
B: It is wrong to apply the historical method to something so frequently wrong
C: It is wrong to apply the historical method to something so detached from the events
D: It is wrong to apply the historical method to something that has been made up
To 2)
A: The historical criteria are illogical
To 3)
A: All of these experts have residual delusions from when they were Christian
B: There are some who doubt the existence of Jesus

And the debate seems to get stuck after this point. I have answered all of the above, but whenever I do, someone else seems to reverse and go up one of the other routes.

 

[phelix]

First hit on Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pumpkin

According to Linus, on Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of a pumpkin patch he deems the most "sincere", then flies through the air delivering toys to all the good little children in the world. Linus further believes that the Great Pumpkin is very sensitive and easily offended and, as such, would choose to bypass anyone who doubts or denies his existence. Therefore, in writing to the Great Pumpkin, while trying to convince him that your pumpkin patch is sincere, you are not to ask for anything specific, but wait for and accept whatever he brings.

Right. By sincere I mean the author was intending to inform.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hopefully it'll sink in. Two people have challenged the claim but been unable to name a single example of one who doubts Jesus' existence. I suspect many people on here would find it unusual to be in a position supported by 0% of the experts, so it is a fact that would need to be confronted, and I imagine that would be tough to do.

Oh do stop rabbiting on.

George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the idea that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968

____________________​

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He is professor of theology and scriptural studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), and Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009).

____________________​

Thomas L. Thompson (born January 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian associated with the movement known as the Copenhagen School. He was professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009, lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen

____________________​

Earl J. Doherty (born 1941) has a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages and is the author of Challenging the Verdict (2001), The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009). Doherty argues for a version of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure.

____________________​

D. M. Murdock, better known by her pen name Acharya S, is an author and proponent of the Christ myth theory. She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths. Acharya received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed her postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.

____________________​

Victor J. Stenger (born January 29, 1935, Bayonne, New Jersey) is an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist, and author, now active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.

As of June 2010, he has published nine books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience, the latest of which include The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, which was released in September 2009, and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (2011).​

____________________​

I could probably add Dawkins and Hitchens, but I've already done more than enough to feed your obvious lust for appeals to authority, and I have little doubt that you'll find some objection or other to anyone I suggest.

Go your hardest, but for goodness sake try and find someone who cares and tell them will you?

 

[phelix]

Of your list, there is only one biblical scholar (Robert Price) and he is unable to get a teaching position at an accredited university.
I will not find an objection if you suggest anyone who falls within the clear scope of the original challenge, but you cannot.

Edit: Also I like your use of Acharya S. I never thought I would see someone on a skeptic forum posting a conspiracy theorist who claims the freemasons covered up ancient history as an expert supporter of their position.

 

[Akhenaten]

And the debate seems to get stuck after this point. I have answered all of the above, but whenever I do, someone else seems to reverse and go up one of the other routes.

Any chance of a forecast of when you'll be through with lecturing us and in a position to start presenting some evidence?

 

[phelix]

Any chance of a forecast of when you'll be through with lecturing us and in a position to start presenting some evidence?

I have done so. See my breakdown above of the main points and counterarguments.
Edit: You quoted the post in which I gave this breakdown so you will have read it. Which counterargument would you say is valid?

 

[Akhenaten]

Of your list, there is only one biblical scholar (Robert Price) and he is unable to get a teaching position at an accredited university.

He didn't get a position on my list either. What am I to make of that?

I will not find an objection if you suggest anyone who falls within the clear scope of the original challenge, but you cannot.

I don't care. Didn't you get the memo?

Edit: Also I like your use of Acharya S. I never thought I would see someone on a skeptic forum posting a conspiracy theorist who claims the freemasons covered up ancient history as an expert supporter of their position.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition Freemasons.

 

[phelix]

If you are uninterested in finding what is likely to be true through discussion, or contributing material that you are confident of the veracity, then why participate?