Historical Jesus

[Learner]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]

The atheist (infidel Guy) is trying at least although it is quite amusing.

 

[abaddon]

The atheist (infidel Guy) is trying at least although it is quite amusing.

Infidel Guy did very well. It's the imbecile historian that he interviewed who was a flop.

"We don't have anything that exists until after he died, allegedly, right? asked the Infidel Guy.
"About him, you mean?" responded the historian.
"Yeah, about Jesus".
"Yeah that's true of everyone!" answers the historian, and giggles. The comments about how everyone might as well deny Julius Caesar or even The Holocaust are errors as well. He's trying to lend weight to highly doubtful documents using false equivalencies.

Judging by this vid, it's looking like the supposition of an historical Jesus is just that, and if it's true and not a lie that most historians accept an historical Jesus then that's because they're ok with supposing shit just because the name turns up.

It's disappointing. If there were a real Jesus, I'd be interested in knowing what's known of him. But, apparently we're just stuck with the same-old-same-old: Why would people write gospels starring Jesus, or Paul make even casual mentions of Jesus, if it there weren't a dude? So all this thread is just some stupid quibbling over how well the gospels and Paul compare with other historical documents? Bummer. Because none of it's news at all.

And what is it with these people who put Youtube videos up anyway? Their titles NEVER describe the content of the vid. It's always a declaration that their personal dig has been vindicated; but it's never true. "Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence". Umm, nope, false. And then there are all the people who've been "DESTROYED!!!" by someone or other... But it's never true. It's always someone reading a vindication of their beliefs into something where it just doesn't exist.

 

[Learner]

Infidel Guy did very well. It's the imbecile historian that he interviewed who was a flop.

Sure If you say so. I particularly used this because it was Bart Erhman himself who has ironically debated against Christian apologetics like William Craig Lane. He answered every question to Mr. Infidel with a somewhat stunned surprise perhaps not expecting Erhman to disagree with him.

"We don't have anything that exists until after he died, allegedly, right? asked the Infidel Guy.
"About him, you mean?" responded the historian.
"Yeah, about Jesus".
"Yeah that's true of everyone!" answers the historian, and giggles. The comments about how everyone might as well deny Julius Caesar or even The Holocaust are errors as well. He's trying to lend weight to highly doubtful documents using false equivalencies.

These are not false equivalencies . The example is ; history of those times is accepted with much less written about than Jesus.

Judging by this vid, it's looking like the supposition of an historical Jesus is just that, and if it's true and not a lie that most historians accept an historical Jesus then that's because they're ok with supposing shit just because the name turns up.

The important bit then is "Most" historians if not all. You and I can make of it as we see it.

And what is it with these people who put Youtube videos up anyway? Their titles NEVER describe the content of the vid. It's always a declaration that their personal dig has been vindicated; but it's never true. "Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence". Umm, nope, false. And then there are all the people who've been "DESTROYED!!!" by someone or other... But it's never true. It's always someone reading a vindication of their beliefs into something where it just doesn't exist.

I wasn't concerned about the title of the vid and believe it or not I wouldn't think you'd take such a title seriously .

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder if that's a discredited hypothesis, dead well before that documentary/fiction was made?

 

[Juma]

In a couple of generations from now Christopher Hitchens might be more famous than he was when alive.
People will argue about which of his sayings were authentic and which were literal or figurative.
Did he convert (back) to Judaism on his deathbed?
Did he doubt his own atheism?
Was he pro-life?
How much did he really love the KJV bible.
Did he think women/wives ought to be homemakers and husbands the bread winners?

And as time passes it will gradually become easier and easier to transform him and his deeds into suprahistorical events.

FWIW - Christians don't think it is a 'slur' against Hitchens that he may have considered God and/or converted in his final weeks/days. To call that an attack on his integrity would be like saying every atheist (free thinker) who converts to religion ought to feel shame.
CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Antony Flew, Malcolm Muggeridge, Lee Strobel

...Paul Jones

View attachment 10759

Hm. Of course there are athesists that become christians. Whh fo you even have to bring that up?
You know, people arent born religious.

The question is: is there atheists that has rationally grounded there atheism and THEN became christians?
I dont think so.

 

[Thomas II]

I wonder if that's a discredited hypothesis, dead well before that documentary/fiction was made?

Is it discredited? Where?

 

[Learner]

Chris White has a pretty good go refuting the idea.

[YOUTUBE]
https://youtu.be/lF89l3k6hkQ [/YOUTUBE]

A plan that goes against the Romans ,their way of life and their gods doesn't make sense!

 

[abaddon]

The important bit then is "Most" historians if not all. You and I can make of it as we see it.

No, the important bit is supposing. It's supposition if they're saying "there's not enough reason to believe there was no one named Jesus who served as a starting point for the fantastical tales that people were concocting after his death". That the gospels are historical documents doesn't matter. The question is, how much of what's in them is true? Repeating "The writings are part of history" resolves nothing of significance. Repeating "I think there probably was a Jesus" means nothing. If it's an historian saying these things means nothing, he has to do more than just emit sounds from his face.

I wasn't concerned about the title of the vid and believe it or not I wouldn't think you'd take such a title seriously .

The title's an argument. Presenting it and commenting like you agree with it and then later saying "Don't take it seriously" is a very lame way to make an argument.

The title serves as an illustration of how unreliable anybody's brief comment on any video is.

By just linking a vid and adding a little comment, you 1) let someone else do your talking for you and 2) fail to demonstrate your comment has any relation to what's really in the video. It looks a lot like trying to make arguments but avoid putting your neck out.

If you summarize the vid, then even if you're projecting your own view onto what others said in the vid, that's YOU and your viewpoint there for people to address. That would be more like a conversation instead of just leaving falsehoods laying around like turds in the lawn.

 

[blastula]

Maybe Jesus was a time traveler from the future. Behold the Man (novel) - Wikipedia

 

[credoconsolans]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.

Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It was also once scholarly consensus that Jesus was a god-man.

How'd that work out?

 

[Learner]

No, the important bit is supposing. It's supposition if they're saying "there's not enough reason to believe there was no one named Jesus who served as a starting point for the fantastical tales that people were concocting after his death". That the gospels are historical documents doesn't matter. The question is, how much of what's in them is true? Repeating "The writings are part of history" resolves nothing of significance. Repeating "I think there probably was a Jesus" means nothing. If it's an historian saying these things means nothing, he has to do more than just emit sounds from his face.

As you would have heard from Erhman as I take a snippet from your previous mentioned quote "might as well deny Julius Caesar." (not that the context was what you mean't)

The title's an argument. Presenting it and commenting like you agree with it and then later saying "Don't take it seriously" is a very lame way to make an argument.

The title serves as an illustration of how unreliable anybody's brief comment on any video is.

One sentence in the previous post under the video is not agreeing with the title it was a sentence for the content. "Overwhelming" is exactly what I'd expect you to find issue with. If its a lame argument then I'll accept it , got to have a lamer once in a while.

By just linking a vid and adding a little comment, you 1) let someone else do your talking for you and 2) fail to demonstrate your comment has any relation to what's really in the video. It looks a lot like trying to make arguments but avoid putting your neck out.

If you summarize the vid, then even if you're projecting your own view onto what others said in the vid, that's YOU and your viewpoint there for people to address. That would be more like a conversation instead of just leaving falsehoods laying around like turds in the lawn.

Avoiding .. not at all .. people quote people in posts anyway .. If you look back at posts I've already posted throughout .. I hardly use videos unless there was an expertise to backup an argument. Besides nothing wrong posting vids if one finds interesting hearing the audio of interesting individuals speak imo.

 

[angelo]

It was also once scholarly consensus that Jesus was a god-man.

How'd that work out?

The scholarly consensus know which side of the toast is buttered!

 

[Thomas II]

Interview with Joseph Atwill examines criticisms of his controversial theory about the founding of the Christian church and his book, Caesar’s Messiah.

http://skeptiko.com/241-joseph-atwill-repsonds-to-caesars-messiah-critics/

The book itself

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/caesar-messiah.pdf

 

[credoconsolans]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.

Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.

I brought that up in a thread a year or so ago. If the "evidence" is basically hearsay, and there is no real proof, why don't historians/scholars say so?

Instead, we get this hedging. "A man named Jesus PROBABLY existed..."

Which gives bible thumpers all the ammo they need to take "a man named Jesus probably existing" and run with it to "Jesus the son of god existed so say all historians!"

 

[beero1000]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Feel free to check the references on the wiki page  Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.

Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.

I'm not super interested in continuing to belabor this point. I just want to point out, one last time, that "From what I've read" or "The experts are wrong" or "Follow the money" or "People once thought the Earth was flat" is what conspiracy theorists say. Now you might think that that doesn't apply to your well thought out rationales and researched opinions, but conspiracy theorists think that too. The burden of evidence is much, much higher when your conclusion contradicts those of most PhDs whose research is focused on the subject. They laughed at Galileo, but they laughed at Bozo the Clown too. If you really think you have a convincing argument that contradicts the scholarly consensus, publish it and change the scholarly consensus - that's how it works.

Until then

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

He's simply making an argument from authority, or maybe an argument from tradition, or maybe both.

 

[beero1000]

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

From the link in the previous post:

Esteemed historical Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University represents a consensus position when he writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity” (Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus.11.) Similarly, Luke Timothy Johnson writes that "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.", (Johnson, The Real Jesus. 121.) This is not to imply that all scholars agree about everything, but that scholars do not only just agree that Jesus lived but that a number of things can be said about him with a high degree of historical certainty.

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

He's simply making an argument from authority, or maybe an argument from tradition, or maybe both.

You're damn right I am.

A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.