Post here if you don't buy into the Jesus Myth.

[Backglass]

That the Bible is the word of God stops being a matter of faith, because it's changed my life in ways that only God could.

You changed your life. There was no unseen hand guiding you. The path YOU chose is the path YOU are on. It's all you Nate. Just like jay and his TV Preacher healing, you can't explain or fathom that something could just happen...so it must have been a god.

I was late for my train this morning. There was no possible way I would make it to the station in time. But I made the drive in record time and the train was late. GOD WANTED ME TO MAKE THAT TRAIN. No human could have arranged for that to happen.

From that intellectual decision, a lot of other things become logical, which means I have almost no faith at all.

But it's an intellectual decision only to you and your fellow "believers". To the rest of us, it's just reasoning away the obvious. The end justifying the beginning.

I think you're underestimating the ability of the will to conquer the intellect.

No. I believe 100% that YOU believe everything you say. Your will HAS conquered your intellect in my opinion.

[MR. Nate]

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith." - Unknown

Your will HAS conquered your intellect in my opinion.

So are you going to redefine faith? Or am I just willful before anything else?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Backglass, I'll tentativly accept your definition of faith, even though I think it's wrong. I'm uneasy with it, because I just realized how limited my faith is. For instance, I don't have faith that Jesus existed, because it's pretty clear to me that he did. There is a significant amount of evidence that he did, so it's not at all something my intellect wants to reject.

Please, present this evidence and counter my previously stated arguments if the above rings true.

The same goes for the existence of God, despite your, and others, claims to the contrary. That the Bible is the word of God stops being a matter of faith, because it's changed my life in ways that only God could. From that intellectual decision, a lot of other things become logical, which means I have almost no faith at all.

That isn't an intellectual decision, you're asserting the consequent, creating a false dichotomy, and suppressing multiple premises, all logical fallacies. Just because you have come under the assumption that only God could change your life in such a way does not make it so. To argue that this is an intellectual decision that leads to more logical conclusions is insulting to my, as well as others, intelligence.

I think you're underestimating the ability of the will to conquer the intellect. We've all seen it time and again in those we disagree with, the ability to absolutly ignore the point that blows up their entire argument. I'm not naming names, and I'll hope no one else does, in the name of civility.

It would seem that you espouse this argument and yet fail to counter the valid points brought against you. This is nothing short of intellectual sloth and hypocrisy.

[joe snuffy]

why are you so determined to disprove and discredit the Christian faith? I mean, even if Jesus might not have existed, the Bible is an excellent guideline on how an ideal person should live their lives. You have to give it THAT, don't you?

Absolutely not. The bible advocates filicide, incest, revenge, misogyny, slavery, slaughter and rape. Not how anyone should live their lives IMHO. We don't need an old book to tell us how to live.

And, Mr. Smarta*s, where does the Bible say these things??? Please give me verses.

Tons of verses here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Dang. You beat me to it. I started at page one, and I noticed that Caleb ran home with his tail between his legs.

[MR. Nate]

I must confess, Jesse, that your venom concerns me. I don't think I've ever insulted you, have I? If so, I apolagize, and ask you to lay down your angry words and join the people here who can look past their emotional entanglements with the issue and discuss it.

Please, present this evidence and counter my previously stated arguments if the above rings true.

Which previously stated arguments? If you're referring to the "Faith is hope confused for knowledge." than I'm not arguing with you. I would lean toward defining faith as hope more than I would a rejection of intellect. If your looking for evidence that Jesus did exist, and you reject the New Testament (Which even if it's not inspired, is certainly as reliable as anything else we have) Then look at Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Julius Africanus and Pliny the Younger, which all mention Jesus or Chrestus (Latin for Christ). And debate in your mind the martyrdom of the early church fathers, and whether YOU would die for something you made up.

That isn't an intellectual decision, you're asserting the consequent, creating a false dichotomy, and suppressing multiple premises, all logical fallacies.

Are you referring to my argument? I was baising the entire on Backglass' definition of faith. If you'd like to tell me exactly which terms in my post were fallacious, then I'd be happy to address them, but flinging about loaded intellectual terms without a target can be seen as imprudent.

Just because you have come under the assumption that only God could change your life in such a way does not make it so.

For you to decide that God is NOT the only thing that could change my life does not give you any more credibility. It is not something verifiable empirically, it is a matter of opinion, and on this particular issue, you have less, credibility than I, since it's my life.

To argue that this is an intellectual decision that leads to more logical conclusions is insulting to my, as well as others, intelligence.

Fine, if your shell is so soft that another person's faith is insulting to you, be insulted.

It would seem that you espouse this argument and yet fail to counter the valid points brought against you. This is nothing short of intellectual sloth and hypocrisy.

I don't appreciate being called a sloth or a hypocrite, so perhaps you could refresh my memory as to which points you were referring to?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I must confess, Jesse, that your venom concerns me. I don't think I've ever insulted you, have I? If so, I apolagize, and ask you to lay down your angry words and join the people here who can look past their emotional entanglements with the issue and discuss it.

I have very little emotional entanglements, and I don't know where you get off stating that I have spoken with a harsh tongue. I would implore you point out where I may have been harsh, so that I avoid coming across so again. I am only invested in this debate intellectually, not emotionally.

Please, present this evidence and counter my previously stated arguments if the above rings true.

If your looking for evidence that Jesus did exist, and you reject the New Testament (Which even if it's not inspired, is certainly as reliable as anything else we have)

It's not reliable, and for you to argue that it is only shows how little you know about history. The oldest Gospel was written nearly 40 years after the death of the supposed Christ.

Moreover, Saul (called Paul) was the only person to write about Christianity between the death of Christ and the Gospels. He wrote nearly 80,000 words about Christ. Oddly enough, he never mentioned once the Birth, Life, Ministry, Miracles, Last Supper, or Trial of Christ. All he mentions is the Crucification, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus. How do we go from almost nothing, to an entire life story, when the only source for the Gospels never once met Christ, and only mentioned the above three things?

Then look at Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Julius Africanus and Pliny the Younger, which all mention Jesus or Chrestus (Latin for Christ).

You clearly missed my posts about the validity of Josephus and Pliny the Younger as resources for proving that Christ existed. I would suggest you actually go back and read them before you present an argument that has already been refuted, and it behooves you not to miss the points presented, to save both of us time. All I am asking for is confirmation of facts.

However, admittedly I did not address Tacitus, but that is another easy one to refute. Tacitus was born 64 C.E., and wrote his Annals in 109 C.E. (the collection of writings in which he mentions a Christus, even though it lacked a source). Although the validity of this mention itself is disputed, the error of using him as a source for the life of Christ is clear in that he was not born until some 34 years after the supposed death of Christ, and that his accounts rely only on hearsay.

Your mention of Julius Africanus, however confuses me. How can you quote a Christian Historian who was born 300 years after the supposed fact as a valid source that Jesus lived?

And debate in your mind the martyrdom of the early church fathers, and whether YOU would die for something you made up.

The Early Church fathers never met Christ, nor met a person who met Christ. Moreover, you're making an appeal to emotion. I won't be swayed by arguments that rely on little factual basis.

That isn't an intellectual decision, you're asserting the consequent, creating a false dichotomy, and suppressing multiple premises, all logical fallacies.

Are you referring to my argument? I was baising the entire on Backglass' definition of faith. If you'd like to tell me exactly which terms in my post were fallacious, then I'd be happy to address them, but flinging about loaded intellectual terms without a target can be seen as imprudent.

Forgive me, here you go:

That the Bible is the word of God stops being a matter of faith, because it's changed my life in ways that only God could.

This is an Assertion of the Consequent. Additionally, you're suppressing premises on so many levels I cannot begin to describe how badly you've misused logic.

The False Dichotomy comes from the syllogistic assertion that only God could change your life.

Just because you have come under the assumption that only God could change your life in such a way does not make it so.

For you to decide that God is NOT the only thing that could change my life does not give you any more credibility. It is not something verifiable empirically, it is a matter of opinion, and on this particular issue, you have less, credibility than I, since it's my life.[/quote]

I have not decided, I have merely commented that you lack any rational basis for this and instead rely on appeals to emotion and very little factual basis for your opinions.

To argue that this is an intellectual decision that leads to more logical conclusions is insulting to my, as well as others, intelligence.

Fine, if your shell is so soft that another person's faith is insulting to you, be insulted.

*shrugs* What ever.

It would seem that you espouse this argument and yet fail to counter the valid points brought against you. This is nothing short of intellectual sloth and hypocrisy.

I don't appreciate being called a sloth or a hypocrite, so perhaps you could refresh my memory as to which points you were referring to?

Not reading through the entire thread and using the same arguments that have already been refuted is a clear cut case of hypocrisy in regards to your more previous comment.

[vtmarik]

Fervently stating what has been disproven to be true is no hypocrisy, it's True Believer Syndrome.

When someone declares a belief, and you present evidence to prove that belief to be misplaced, the person has two choices:
A) They can mull over the new data and see if their beliefs change
B) They can leap back, pull out their Bible, and assert the same premise over and over until their doubts evaporate.

Certainly B is hyperbole, but you get the drift. Just because some one part of the Bible or Christianity is wrong doesn't invalidate the entire thing. When dealing with literalists, you have to remember that if there is one detail that is wrong in any theory or doctrine then you have to throw it away.

True Believer Syndrome is seen usually in UFO abductees or other such hardcore believers. It is defined as the inability for someone to re-evaluate arcane or impractical beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. When any information or evidence is introduced that calls into question the believer's worldview, it is seen as an attack. The believer then becomes needlessly defensive and tends to shut off from rationalizing what you are saying.

A succinct way of putting it is that True Believer Syndrome is a psychological event where the rational mind is shut down in favor of a slightly easier-to-swallow capsule of stories and conditioned belief.

[MR. Nate]

You clearly missed my posts about the validity of Josephus and Pliny the Younger as resources for proving that Christ existed. I would suggest you actually go back and read them before you present an argument that has already been refuted, and it behooves you not to miss the points presented, to save both of us time. All I am asking for is confirmation of facts.

If i'm following this correctly, your disqualifying all the sources that do mention Jesus, because they are not "early" enough for you, or they have been tampered with (Who is this majority of knowledgeable scholars?, and what journal did they write in?), and you demand that the evidence for Jesus be during his lifetime, and say that is a refutation. You have contested the integrety of the sources, but you have not "refuted" their claims. The most irritating think about your "refutation" is that it focuses on the fact that the sources for Jesus are the people that believed him. REALLY? Who else would care to write about him?Your posts add up to: "None of the sources that claim Jesus existed are good enough for me, so find me more."

My argument is essentiall this:
We have documentation dating back to the late 1st century / early second century that a person called Jesus or Christ lived early in 1st century Palistine. The authors already mentioned, as well as the gospels & paul, and a few Jewish religious sources give us some significant evidence that he existed. Scholars do not generally question the existence of Jesus, they question claims of his Godhood.

Which author or scholar, exactly, would you say is the most convincing in their argument that Jesus didn't exist? For me, Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is one I would recommend if you're serious about this. He's not a scholar, but he was an excellant investigative journalist.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

You clearly missed my posts about the validity of Josephus and Pliny the Younger as resources for proving that Christ existed. I would suggest you actually go back and read them before you present an argument that has already been refuted, and it behooves you not to miss the points presented, to save both of us time. All I am asking for is confirmation of facts.

If i'm following this correctly, your disqualifying all the sources that do mention Jesus, because they are not "early" enough for you, or they have been tampered with

That is precisely why. None of these so called "accounts" are able to verify first person sources, or claim themselves as first person sources. This is not academic in the slightest bit.

(Who is this majority of knowledgeable scholars?, and what journal did they write in?)

I give you recommendations below, and it doesn't take a majority of scholars to recognize sheer fucking truth.

and you demand that the evidence for Jesus be during his lifetime, and say that is a refutation.

The refutations existed in that the sources provided were not first person, nor provided first person accounts. They are all based off of hearsay, and thus are not historically objective. You need to understand that what I am asking for is not that hard to provide in just about every case of historical personage. The only person who seems to turn up these problems is Jesus.

You have contested the integrety of the sources, but you have not "refuted" their claims.

I don't need to refute the claims. The times in which they were written speaks for themselves.

The most irritating think about your "refutation" is that it focuses on the fact that the sources for Jesus are the people that believed him.

Actually, Josephus was a Jew, Tacitus was not Christian, and Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were pagans. They didn't believe in him, they only heard about him through hearsay. None the less, my refutations don't care about religion (as clearly exemplified by Josephus and Co.), but instead the historical objectivity of the sources I have been provided thus far. To use these as a definitive works that prove Christ existed is ridiculous.

REALLY? Who else would care to write about him?Your posts add up to: "None of the sources that claim Jesus existed are good enough for me, so find me more."

It's not a matter of not being good enough, it's a matter of being able to stand up to the Historical Method. If it can't stand up to a simple set of tests, it can't be considered historically accurate.

My argument is essentiall this:
We have documentation dating back to the late 1st century / early second century that a person called Jesus or Christ lived early in 1st century Palistine

False. We have zero objective evidence providing proof for the existence of Christ from a contemporary. Everything we have about Jesus comes from sources that occur too far out of his death time to be even considered a contemporary or to hold a first person view.

Again, I would mention Philo Judaeus and Pliny the Elder. Surely if such a person like Jesus existed, we would have heard about him from two of the most prominent recorders and historians of his time. Yet again, we have NOTHING to support the idea that Jesus existed.

To illustrate this incredible absence of Jesus Christ in the writings of his contemporaries, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an "Abraham Lincoln" but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet you want me to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. That, my apologist friend, is intellectual suicide.

The authors already mentioned, as well as the gospels & paul, and a few Jewish religious sources give us some significant evidence that he existed. Scholars do not generally question the existence of Jesus, they question claims of his Godhood.

Oh really? So you know every scholar? *rolls eyes*

Moreover, as mentioned above, these sources provide absolutely NO evidence that Jesus existed. I can only wonder why you continue to embarrass your self when you unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Indeed, we can argue in circles till we die due to these questionable documentations, but we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

To flat out deny this is an exercise is rebuking known methods of recording history.

Which author or scholar, exactly, would you say is the most convincing in their argument that Jesus didn't exist?

To rely on a single authoritative work is selling yourself short, and I wouldn't recommend it especially considering that my life's work is History (I am a Historian-Archivist for the City of New York, and worked for a short while as an assistant archaeologist with Franklin Pierce College before that).

However, I would recommend that you read Marshall Gauvin, Stephen Jay Gould, Gerald Massey, Rob Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and Dennis McKinsey.

For me, Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is one I would recommend if you're serious about this. He's not a scholar, but he was an excellant investigative journalist.

Surprise Fact: Lee Strobel is my fathers cousin, and generally regarded in my family as a hack (my family is a collection of journalists, professors, and business men/women). His journalism is poor (he sought zero objectivity which is clear in his writings), and his research methods are even more appalling by any scholarly standard (he did not even bother to look for an opposing viewpoint).

You clearly have no idea what it means to be historically objective or accurate.

[unriggable]

Fervently stating what has been disproven to be true is no hypocrisy, it's True Believer Syndrome.

When someone declares a belief, and you present evidence to prove that belief to be misplaced, the person has two choices:
A) They can mull over the new data and see if their beliefs change
B) They can leap back, pull out their Bible, and assert the same premise over and over until their doubts evaporate.

Certainly B is hyperbole, but you get the drift. Just because some one part of the Bible or Christianity is wrong doesn't invalidate the entire thing. When dealing with literalists, you have to remember that if there is one detail that is wrong in any theory or doctrine then you have to throw it away.

True Believer Syndrome is seen usually in UFO abductees or other such hardcore believers. It is defined as the inability for someone to re-evaluate arcane or impractical beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. When any information or evidence is introduced that calls into question the believer's worldview, it is seen as an attack. The believer then becomes needlessly defensive and tends to shut off from rationalizing what you are saying.

A succinct way of putting it is that True Believer Syndrome is a psychological event where the rational mind is shut down in favor of a slightly easier-to-swallow capsule of stories and conditioned belief.

I hope most of us Atheists or at least non-christians on CC have no problem with the religious, it's only when they are so certain in their beliefs that they go beyond common sense to force their ideas into somebody's mind.

[vtmarik]

I hope most of us Atheists or at least non-christians on CC have no problem with the religious, it's only when they are so certain in their beliefs that they go beyond common sense to force their ideas into somebody's mind.

So can the semi-religious. Pray to your god whenever, we don't care. Your right to free worship does not give you the right to infringe on other people's privacy to sell them your doctrine.

[flashleg8]

Surprise Fact: Lee Strobel is my fathers cousin, and generally regarded in my family as a hack (my family is a collection of journalists, professors, and business men/women). His journalism is poor (he sought zero objectivity which is clear in his writings), and his research methods are even more appalling by any scholarly standard (he did not even bother to look for an opposing viewpoint).

He's got you there!

The more I read of Jesse's posts the more I'm coming round to his point of view.

[Backglass]

Fervently stating what has been disproven to be true is no hypocrisy, it's True Believer Syndrome.

When someone declares a belief, and you present evidence to prove that belief to be misplaced, the person has two choices:
A) They can mull over the new data and see if their beliefs change
B) They can leap back, pull out their Bible, and assert the same premise over and over until their doubts evaporate.

Certainly B is hyperbole, but you get the drift. Just because some one part of the Bible or Christianity is wrong doesn't invalidate the entire thing. When dealing with literalists, you have to remember that if there is one detail that is wrong in any theory or doctrine then you have to throw it away.

True Believer Syndrome is seen usually in UFO abductees or other such hardcore believers. It is defined as the inability for someone to re-evaluate arcane or impractical beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. When any information or evidence is introduced that calls into question the believer's worldview, it is seen as an attack. The believer then becomes needlessly defensive and tends to shut off from rationalizing what you are saying.

A succinct way of putting it is that True Believer Syndrome is a psychological event where the rational mind is shut down in favor of a slightly easier-to-swallow capsule of stories and conditioned belief.

And THAT was brilliant and spot on.

Bravo.

I hope most of us Atheists or at least non-christians on CC have no problem with the religious, it's only when they are so certain in their beliefs that they go beyond common sense to force their ideas into somebody's mind.

Abso-frickin-lutely. If you want to pray for the next three years in your private home or church, knock yourself out...nobody will stop you. If you want to live your life for jesus, zues or the ghost of Sam Kinison...be my guest. Nobody is going to stop you.

But if you want to teach your cultish crap in my kids public schools, place religious texts on public lands or anything else my tax dollars pay for, a LOT of people are going to try to stop you.

Thats one thing I have never understood about these religious wackos. WHY must everything be done on the public stage for all to see? Why must the high school football game wait to start, so some can pray? Can't they pray during the opening kickoff? Better yet...cant they pray for a few hours (or days) at home before the game? Why force it on everyone? Why the big show? Why the display? Say your prayers in private and go nuts! Do you know why the muslims in the NFL didnt get out their mats and pray to allah before the Superbowl? Because it is a PRIVATE MATTER in their eyes. They dont do it for the benefit of anyone but them & their religion.

It was my understanding that the christian god didn't WANT pomp and circumstance either. Be humble, etc. Or was it written somewhere that you must also "annoy thy neighbor" at every turn?

[flashleg8]

But if you want to teach your cultish crap in my kids public schools, place religious texts on public lands or anything else my tax dollars pay for, a LOT of people are going to try to stop you.

Amen! Brother Backglass.

Why must the high school football game wait to start, so some can pray? Can't they pray during the opening kickoff?

Does that happen in the States? We kind of find that stuff weird in the UK. When I was at school if some kid started praying before a football game he'd have got bullied! Not that I'd condone that of course - I'm just constantly surprised at the religious zeal in some parts of America, and how it seems to be so accepted by teenagers/young adults. I'm the first to hold my hand up and say that most of my ideas of American culture come from T.V./films/books, which usually is pretty secular and pretty similar to us in the UK. But it’s only till you watch some documentaries or "reality TV" that the you notice that a lot of Americans are devoutly religious. For example I watched a documentary recently about the whole "no sex before marriage" movement in American teenagers. Now regardless of my views on this subject, it was really just the fact that this seemed so accepted by the high school kids - there didn't seem to be any normal teenage rebellion stuff we would have over here. As Americans - would you say this is pretty widespread? Or just in certain state/sections of society?

[Blueoctober]

as a US high school kid i would say its only some people that care about religon.

its kinda fading out

[MeDeFe]

Why must the high school football game wait to start, so some can pray? Can't they pray during the opening kickoff?

Why must they pray before a football game AT ALL? I mean, praying during church service, yes obviously; at a funeral if you and the deceased believed in it, sure, no problem; at Easter, CHRISTmas, Hanukkah, and other such times, sure thing if you're a believer.

But WHY pray before a football game starts? And what do you pray? "Please god make my team win"? That's not even religion, that's just showing off and being "holier-than-thou".

[MR. Nate]

I shouldn't have to tell you, oh thou Knower of All Things Historical and Objective, that a lot of ancient historians and writers didn't have a very "Scientific" method. Nobody cites sources, authors rewrite stories they feel are accurate without verification, much more ad hoc than the current method. Do you question the existence of Plato? we've got 1 source for him, and he's not even reliable as to what Plato said. Was Plato his name? probably not. But nobody runs around saying "Plato never existed." I’m not trying to convolute the issue here, but I think your predisposition against Christianity has influenced you more than you realize.

As for your arguments from silence, well, arguments from silence are about as weak as arguments come.

it doesn't take a majority of scholars to recognize sheer fucking truth

Now I'm thinking that your committed to this "No Jesus" position as much as I am opposed to it. So much for your being open-minded. So the majority of scholarship is wrong? OK, if you want to stick with that, fine.

Gauvin, Carrier & McKinsey are not scholars. Their work on Jesus generally gets blown to bits in critical review by humanists, historians and biblical scholars alike. It's sad these guys get published. Carrier & Gauvin call themselves freethinkers, meaning that they reject consensus and dogma.
Stephen Jay Gould: You cite a paleontologist on history? Is that scholarly?
Gerald Massey didn't deny the existence of Jesus, He said his name was Jehoshua ben Pandira, and that he was a Essene philosopher & moral teacher.
Rob Price is considers himself a freethinker, and claims it's a push.

Amid this Jesus-din, one seldom catches the strains of the Christ-myth theory long championed by skeptics and freethinkers, namely that Jesus had no more historical basis than Osiris, that the Galilean rabbi and healer of the Gospels is the result of the early Christian imagination clothing an earlier mythic Jesus in the false garb of the first-century Jewish environment

Translation: Skeptics and freethinkers love this, but it gets no scholarly support.

Price and Doherty are probably the only ones from the brief list you gave me I could accept as remotely relevant scholars. I'd add G.A. Wells, but they all essentially arrived at their conclusions by removing all the pieces of the story they felt were "mythic." It seems backwards to me. "Let's get rid of what we don't like, or that seems too formulaic, and see if we can find Jesus" By analogy: "Let’s get rid of all the evidence that portrays Alexander the great as the archetypal world conqueror, and see if we can find the REAL Alexander. Alexander the Great is a fiction!"

OK, you don't like Lee for personal reasons. Try F.F.Bruce, Try Gary Habermas. Try looking at the vast majority scholarly work on the topic. You'll find that by and large, those who study the 1st Century Palestine believe that a moral philosopher named Jesus lived, and eventually was called Christ.

You've done a lot of criticism of other people's viewpoints in this forum. Care to clarify your position? Do you think that all the references to Jesus emerged from the salt water in the Dead sea, or do you have a more conspiratorial view?

[unriggable]

as a US high school kid i would say its only some people that care about religon.

its kinda fading out

It is fading out, but there's still a huge majority and a huge hatred for atheism in the bible belt.

[unriggable]

I shouldn't have to tell you, oh thou Knower of All Things Historical and Objective, that a lot of ancient historians and writers didn't have a very "Scientific" method. Nobody cites sources, authors rewrite stories they feel are accurate without verification, much more ad hoc than the current method. Do you question the existence of Plato? we've got 1 source for him, and he's not even reliable as to what Plato said. Was Plato his name? probably not. But nobody runs around saying "Plato never existed." I’m not trying to convolute the issue here, but I think your predisposition against Christianity has influenced you more than you realize.

As for your arguments from silence, well, arguments from silence are about as weak as arguments come.

it doesn't take a majority of scholars to recognize sheer fucking truth

Now I'm thinking that your committed to this "No Jesus" position as much as I am opposed to it. So much for your being open-minded. So the majority of scholarship is wrong? OK, if you want to stick with that, fine.

Gauvin, Carrier & McKinsey are not scholars. Their work on Jesus generally gets blown to bits in critical review by humanists, historians and biblical scholars alike. It's sad these guys get published. Carrier & Gauvin call themselves freethinkers, meaning that they reject consensus and dogma.
Stephen Jay Gould: You cite a paleontologist on history? Is that scholarly?
Gerald Massey didn't deny the existence of Jesus, He said his name was Jehoshua ben Pandira, and that he was a Essene philosopher & moral teacher.
Rob Price is considers himself a freethinker, and claims it's a push.

Amid this Jesus-din, one seldom catches the strains of the Christ-myth theory long championed by skeptics and freethinkers, namely that Jesus had no more historical basis than Osiris, that the Galilean rabbi and healer of the Gospels is the result of the early Christian imagination clothing an earlier mythic Jesus in the false garb of the first-century Jewish environment

Translation: Skeptics and freethinkers love this, but it gets no scholarly support.

Price and Doherty are probably the only ones from the brief list you gave me I could accept as remotely relevant scholars. I'd add G.A. Wells, but they all essentially arrived at their conclusions by removing all the pieces of the story they felt were "mythic." It seems backwards to me. "Let's get rid of what we don't like, or that seems too formulaic, and see if we can find Jesus" By analogy: "Let’s get rid of all the evidence that portrays Alexander the great as the archetypal world conqueror, and see if we can find the REAL Alexander. Alexander the Great is a fiction!"

OK, you don't like Lee for personal reasons. Try F.F.Bruce, Try Gary Habermas. Try looking at the vast majority scholarly work on the topic. You'll find that by and large, those who study the 1st Century Palestine believe that a moral philosopher named Jesus lived, and eventually was called Christ.

You've done a lot of criticism of other people's viewpoints in this forum. Care to clarify your position? Do you think that all the references to Jesus emerged from the salt water in the Dead sea, or do you have a more conspiratorial view?

Why do we argue IF Jesus lived? That's not really the point.

[Backglass]

nd a huge hatred for atheism in the bible belt.

How very christian!

[heavycola]

nd a huge hatred for atheism in the bible belt.

How very christian!

In 1987, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush was asked by Robert Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, if he recognized the "equal citizenship and patriotism" of atheists in America. Bush responded: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots."

We need a new prez

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I shouldn't have to tell you, oh thou Knower of All Things Historical and Objective, that a lot of ancient historians and writers didn't have a very "Scientific" method.

No, but they understood the importance of using sources, which has carried over for nearly 3,000 years. You're grasping for straws.

Nobody cites sources, authors rewrite stories they feel are accurate without verification, much more ad hoc than the current method.

Do you have proof for this broad appeal to omnipotence?

Do you question the existence of Plato? we've got 1 source for him, and he's not even reliable as to what Plato said. Was Plato his name? probably not. But nobody runs around saying "Plato never existed." I’m not trying to convolute the issue here, but I think your predisposition against Christianity has influenced you more than you realize.

No I do not question the existence of Plato, because I know that Plato existed for the sheer fact that he founded the Academy (fun fact: closed by a Christian who thought it would hurt the propagation of Christianity), has written numerous essays (which have remained intact thanks to those who understood their value), and he directly influenced the times around him (contemporaries write about him at the time when he existed, unlike your Christ).

As for your arguments from silence, well, arguments from silence are about as weak as arguments come.

It's only an argumentum ad silentio if the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is either ignorant of X or has a motive to remain silent about X. Philo Judaeus would have nothing invested in leaving out the story of Christ from his writings, especially considering that vast multitudes of people sought him and heard him speak.

it doesn't take a majority of scholars to recognize sheer fucking truth

Now I'm thinking that your committed to this "No Jesus" position as much as I am opposed to it. So much for your being open-minded. So the majority of scholarship is wrong? OK, if you want to stick with that, fine.

An appeal to majority will not sway my opinion in the face of modern histiographic knowledge.

Gauvin, Carrier & McKinsey are not scholars. Their work on Jesus generally gets blown to bits in critical review by humanists, historians and biblical scholars alike. It's sad these guys get published. Carrier & Gauvin call themselves freethinkers, meaning that they reject consensus and dogma.
Stephen Jay Gould: You cite a paleontologist on history? Is that scholarly?
Gerald Massey didn't deny the existence of Jesus, He said his name was Jehoshua ben Pandira, and that he was a Essene philosopher & moral teacher.

Rob Price is considers himself a freethinker, and claims it's a push.

Amid this Jesus-din, one seldom catches the strains of the Christ-myth theory long championed by skeptics and freethinkers, namely that Jesus had no more historical basis than Osiris, that the Galilean rabbi and healer of the Gospels is the result of the early Christian imagination clothing an earlier mythic Jesus in the false garb of the first-century Jewish environment

Translation: Skeptics and freethinkers love this, but it gets no scholarly support.

This does not make my argument less valid. Why don't you try going to my points and not making appeals to authority?

On a side note, I also believe that I mentioned that I do not depend on other scholars speculations when my lifes work revolves around historical validity. An appeal to consensus does not invalidate the historical method.

Price and Doherty are probably the only ones from the brief list you gave me I could accept as remotely relevant scholars. I'd add G.A. Wells, but they all essentially arrived at their conclusions by removing all the pieces of the story they felt were "mythic." It seems backwards to me. "Let's get rid of what we don't like, or that seems too formulaic, and see if we can find Jesus" By analogy: "Let’s get rid of all the evidence that portrays Alexander the great as the archetypal world conqueror, and see if we can find the REAL Alexander. Alexander the Great is a fiction!"

A strawman, and totally skewed. We do not get rid of what we don't like, we get rid of the unprovable, both historically and scientifically. With that we come up with our results.

Also, your analogy sucks. Even if we get rid of the mythics surrounding Alexander (Gordian knot, offspring of a deity), we still have contemporary sources and clearly seen effects of Alexander's life work. By comparison, we have nothing of the sort from Jesus.

OK, you don't like Lee for personal reasons. Try F.F.Bruce, Try Gary Habermas. Try looking at the vast majority scholarly work on the topic. You'll find that by and large, those who study the 1st Century Palestine believe that a moral philosopher named Jesus lived, and eventually was called Christ.

I have read most of the works on the topic. I have come to my own conclusions as well with my education as a basis. Moreover, to try and use Habermas and Bruce as reputable sources only shows me how interested you are in objective truth. I find it personally sickening that you would consider yourself "intellectual" after mentioning those two morons.

You've done a lot of criticism of other people's viewpoints in this forum. Care to clarify your position? Do you think that all the references to Jesus emerged from the salt water in the Dead sea, or do you have a more conspiratorial view?

My position is simple. Until contemporary or sourced evidence, as well as general histiographic evidence, comes to light, Jesus did not objectively exist. It's a position taken by many scholars, most of whom are not in your intellectual limelight.

[MR. Nate]

Jesse, if I understand you correctly:

1. You don't need a majority of scholars to agree with you for your position to be right.

2. Untill said majority of scholars create sufficient evidence for you, you're not going to believe them.

3. Many (unnamed) scholars take your side.

4. Everything that HAS been written about Jesus is a myth, but we have no idea where it comes from.

Is that it, or am I missing a point?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Jesse, if I understand you correctly:

1. You don't need a majority of scholars to agree with you for your position to be right.

Correct, especially in a case as clear cut as this.

2. Untill said majority of scholars create sufficient evidence for you, you're not going to believe them.

Like any objective scholar, yes. You seem to have it in your head that a majority equates validity. This is not the case.

3. Many (unnamed) scholars take your side.

Yes. To deny the validity of my point on this alone would be an argument from ignorance.

4. Everything that HAS been written about Jesus is a myth, but we have no idea where it comes from.

You're making two points here that don't make sense together. I would ask that you clarify your response.

Is that it, or am I missing a point?

That is pretty much it. You'll find that it is historiography that is on my side with this, and non-objective apologists on yours.

I'd like to add that you haven't so much as tackled the points I have brought up (the issue of the writings being much to old to be considered first person sources or even accurate sources, for one), but argued the invalidity of the historiographic method, which is the commonly accepted tool to quantify what is and is not historically accurate and objective.

[unriggable]

4. Everything that HAS been written about Jesus is a myth, but we have no idea where it comes from.

That's not inconceivable, the Church did some crazy shit before, and I wouldn't all that surprised if they did that as well. It's like the movie 'Lucky Number Slevin' on a huge scale.