Did Jesus exist?

[dejudge]

Do you find that puzzling? It's because Jesus is presented in the earliest texts as a physical human being, and he got deified later. If you read the NT you can watch this happening. It's a bit like your Satan. At first he's not a Devil, but can chat happily with YHWH. He becomes a devil later when God becomes a disembodied omnibenevolent being. Somebody had to do the bad stuff, and Satan got the job.

Your post is void of logic and facts.

Where is the contemporary source pre 70 CE that support your position?

You have nothing but noise--no evidence [no signal].

Your "signal-to-noise" ratio is next to zero or a lower number.

You must have forgotten that nobody here is arguing that Jesus did exist.

Maybe he did--maybe he didn't--they are not sure.

All we know is that he existed as the Son of a Ghost, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator in the NT.

Essentially, all we know is that Jesus was a Myth according to the Scriptures.

Jesus is a Myth like Romulus until new evidence surfaces.

 

[Navigator]

My position is based on the existing evidence from antiquity--not on the majority.

It is a bit strange when an atheist plays the numbers game.

There is not enough evidence for the God of the Jews so I argue that such a God is myth.

There is not enough evidence for an HJ so I argue that there was NEVER any Jesus of Nazareth.

The evidence has spoken.

I do not have to wait to count the votes--I count on the evidence from antiquity.

Yes. Me - I don't care personally whether Jesus was myth or real or a mix of both. I pick out the bits I like and think are useful when expressed into my reality, and leave alone those things which have no relevance to the bits I like or are even in opposition to the bits I like.

I enjoy Yoda too. Robin Hood appeals to me on one level and even Peter Pan has attributes I enjoy.

Tom Sawyer, I am not so sure was as good an influence.

 

[Brainache]

Yes. Me - I don't care personally whether Jesus was myth or real or a mix of both. I pick out the bits I like and think are useful when expressed into my reality, and leave alone those things which have no relevance to the bits I like or are even in opposition to the bits I like.

I enjoy Yoda too. Robin Hood appeals to me on one level and even Peter Pan has attributes I enjoy.

Tom Sawyer, I am not so sure was as good an influence.

Sam Gamgee FTW!

 

[kedo1981]

If you went back in time to 1st century Jerusalem and yelled HEY JESUS, no one would answer you back.

If you found some charismatic with followers how would you if it was him cause there were lots of those?

 

[Craig B]

If you went back in time to 1st century Jerusalem and yelled HEY JESUS, no one would answer you back.

A few high priests would.

Joshua ben Sie 3 BC - ?
Joshua ben Damneus 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64

 

[annnnoid]

Afaik, the only area of academic research that sceptics here have been critical of, is the field of bible studies and religious study issues in general.

It is completely untrue to suggest, as you and others have, that sceptics here have ever been dismissive of any proper objective academic discipline such as any of the main areas in science.

But bible studies and it's practitioners are about as far as academia gets from anything like the objectivity, accuracy, and caution of properly researched science.

Instead, the field of religious studies is an area typically filled with people whose entire lives have been immersed in studies of religion and religious belief, and very often where the practitioners themselves have an earlier history of very intense personal religious faith (as has been shown here countless times). This is by no means a typical or normal field of academic study.

This is pathetic. Without qualification. It has been conclusively established that, amongst scholars, Jesus is an almost universally accepted reality.

…but Ian doesn’t like this.

So what does Ian do when Ian doesn’t get his way? Ian stamps off and throws a temper tantrum.

In every other field of academe…scholars are regarded as authorities. Thus we have the ‘argument from authority’. But when we walk through the doors of the department of classical history, we enter a time warp. We tread a staircase that descends through the pits of hell and enters an alternate zone where black is white and up is down.

Ian accuses the entire field …which, by the way, is comprised of thousands of individuals (not a handful of ‘closet evangelicals’…there are over 7,000 universities in the world most of which include some variety of studies in classical history)… of personal and professional fraud, incompetence, and deception.

They’re all liars and charlatans. Not a one has a shred of academic or personal integrity.

But can Ian prove what amounts to a case of global slander? An indictment of an entire body of academic research!
(ever heard the statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ????)

“Well of course!”…says Ian. “Isn’t it obvious…every last one of them is a closet charismatic!”

…again, without a shred of evidence (unless evidence now includes hearsay, speculation, bias, and personal opinion)…and despite the fact that a great many of those who have agreed with the HJ conclusion are either atheist, agnostic, or have an unrelated religious position.

 

[dejudge]

This is pathetic. Without qualification. It has been conclusively established that, amongst scholars, Jesus is an almost universally accepted reality.

Your statement is void of logic.

We are not really interested in the quantity of people who have a baseless opinion but we need to get the evidence from antiquity.

We already know that there are billions of people who believe that Jesus did exist without evidence and that all of them are Bible Believers.

All Scholars [Christian or not] who claim Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history MUST, MUST, MUST believe the Bible is a credible historical source for Jesus WITHOUT any corroborative evidence pre 70 CE.

 

[The Norseman]

Thanks for the bump.

Are you still thankful for the bump?

 

[IanS]

This is pathetic. Without qualification. It has been conclusively established that, amongst scholars, Jesus is an almost universally accepted reality.

…but Ian doesn’t like this.

So what does Ian do when Ian doesn’t get his way? Ian stamps off and throws a temper tantrum.

In every other field of academe…scholars are regarded as authorities. Thus we have the ‘argument from authority’. But when we walk through the doors of the department of classical history, we enter a time warp. We tread a staircase that descends through the pits of hell and enters an alternate zone where black is white and up is down.

Ian accuses the entire field …which, by the way, is comprised of thousands of individuals (not a handful of ‘closet evangelicals’…there are over 7,000 universities in the world most of which include some variety of studies in classical history)… of personal and professional fraud, incompetence, and deception.

They’re all liars and charlatans. Not a one has a shred of academic or personal integrity.

But can Ian prove what amounts to a case of global slander? An indictment of an entire body of academic research!
(ever heard the statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ????)

“Well of course!”…says Ian. “Isn’t it obvious…every last one of them is a closet charismatic!”

…again, without a shred of evidence (unless evidence now includes hearsay, speculation, bias, and personal opinion)…and despite the fact that a great many of those who have agreed with the HJ conclusion are either atheist, agnostic, or have an unrelated religious position.

If you are impressed by bible studies as an objective university academic discipline, then fine. That's your view of it. And you are welcome to it.

I don't share that view. From what I have seen it's not objectively comparable, or as neutral in the case of many of it's parishioners, as it needs to be when judging the reliability of the gospels and epistles of the NT as credible evidence of what it's anonymous authors say about their religious beliefs in a messiah that none of them ever knew.

 

[dejudge]

If you went back in time to 1st century Jerusalem and yelled HEY JESUS, no one would answer you back.

If you found some charismatic with followers how would you if it was him cause there were lots of those?

If you yelled HEY MESSIAH and Savior--If you YELLED heal me Messiah--Vespasian the Emperor would answer you back.

Wars of the Jews 7

.....they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome.

It is also claimed Vespasian healed the blind and lame in Tacitus Histories 5.

There is simply no evidence at all that people of the Roman Empire worshiped a crucified CRIMINAL of Nazareth as a God.

 

[George]

Are you still thankful for the bump?

Indeed. This thread and the others like it have barely dropped off the page.
So as a warning to others I recommend Navigator be fined two internets for resurrecting this. But then it is the run up to Easter, so as a precaution I suggest we lard our groins and prepare for the worst.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is void of logic.

We are not really interested in the quantity of people who have a baseless opinion but we need to get the evidence from antiquity.

We already know that there are billions of people who believe that Jesus did exist without evidence and that all of them are Bible Believers.

All Scholars [Christian or not] who claim Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history MUST, MUST, MUST believe the Bible is a credible historical source for Jesus WITHOUT any corroborative evidence pre 70 CE.

"The Bible" as such is not "a source". Can you get this into your head? Evidently not.

 

[tsig]

Are you still thankful for the bump?

 

[Brainache]

If you are impressed by bible studies as an objective university academic discipline, then fine. That's your view of it. And you are welcome to it.

I don't share that view. From what I have seen it's not objectively comparable, or as neutral in the case of many of it's parishioners, as it needs to be when judging the reliability of the gospels and epistles of the NT as credible evidence of what it's anonymous authors say about their religious beliefs in a messiah that none of them ever knew.

Annoid was talking about the study of Ancient History in Secular Universities.

They are the people you are slandering.

Please stop slandering an entire Profession.

I should also point out that pretending to be more informed than the Professionals in a subject which you know very little about, makes you look very silly.

Carry on, if you wish.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge, you quote Josephus, War, 7.

.....they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of [Emperor Vespasian's] countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome.

Yes. When the Emperor appeared people said to him how happy they were to see him, how nice looking he was, and that he was the only person worthy to be ruler of Rome. That's what they said to him. Sometimes I don't accept things you tell me; but this time I have no problem. None at all.

 

[Navigator]

Indeed. This thread and the others like it have barely dropped off the page.

I had to go back 3 pages just to find it!

So as a warning to others I recommend Navigator be fined two internets for resurrecting this. But then it is the run up to Easter, so as a precaution I suggest we lard our groins and prepare for the worst.

I suggest using chocolate instead of lard as it is Easter after all.

Also - isn't one internet harsh enough without adding another?

 

[maximara]

This is pathetic. Without qualification. It has been conclusively established that, amongst scholars, Jesus is an almost universally accepted reality.

…but Ian doesn’t like this.

So what does Ian do when Ian doesn’t get his way? Ian stamps off and throws a temper tantrum.

In every other field of academe…scholars are regarded as authorities. Thus we have the ‘argument from authority’. But when we walk through the doors of the department of classical history, we enter a time warp. We tread a staircase that descends through the pits of hell and enters an alternate zone where black is white and up is down.

Ian accuses the entire field …which, by the way, is comprised of thousands of individuals (not a handful of ‘closet evangelicals’…there are over 7,000 universities in the world most of which include some variety of studies in classical history)… of personal and professional fraud, incompetence, and deception.

They’re all liars and charlatans. Not a one has a shred of academic or personal integrity.

But can Ian prove what amounts to a case of global slander? An indictment of an entire body of academic research!

We don't know it is global. From what I have seen Russian and Asian historians may accept the Christ Myth theory.

There are many example of how idea now known to be false were accepted without question by the majority...Aristotle's cosmology being the big one even though there were parts of it that could be proven to be nonsense.

I might add you have the modern examples of Professor John Schneider and Steve Bitterman who were either forced to retire or outright fired for saying the story of Adam and Eve was not historical. When a religion can put that kind of pressure the idea of independent unfettered research goes right out the window.

 

[Brainache]

We don't know it is global. From what I have seen Russian and Asian historians may accept the Christ Myth theory.

There are many example of how idea now known to be false were accepted without question by the majority...Aristotle's cosmology being the big one even though there were parts of it that could be proven to be nonsense.

I might add you have the modern examples of Professor John Schneider and Steve Bitterman who were either forced to retire or outright fired for saying the story of Adam and Eve was not historical. When a religion can put that kind of pressure the idea of independent unfettered research goes right out the window.

What rubbish.

Historians accepting things without question? Where does that happen? North Korea, maybe...

Which secular University were those guys fired from?