There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Darth Ovious]

I said that: "These books are written for a specific market, i.e. evangelical Christians, usually published by small Christian presses catering to this small but lucrative market....."

What part of "usually" did you not understand? Typical of your deceitful debating style that you attempt to make all-encompassing generalizations out of exceptions and evade the only real point, namely that the minority apologist scholars are addressing a specific market of evangelical Christians, like minded fellow Christian apologists and NOT the academic world of biblical scholarship other than to attack it.

Lets see, well first I said this:

So Tassmans claim is fundmentally untrue to begin with.

In fact, a search on Intervarsity Press' website shows that they haven't published ANY books by Witherington.

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/a...st.pl/letter=W

Whoops, Tassman has once again got his facts wrong.

So my claim was in terms to Witherington, who you earlier on included in this list of scholars who have books published by Varsity Press. You directly replied earlier to a segment of mine in regards to Witherington in this fashion.

You have never read Witherington so don't claim you know what he argues for. When I have read WItherington his arguments have always and I mean ALWAYS come from historical data. They NEVER come from his pre-destined beliefs. It is a major, and I mean major, part of Ben Witherington's character that he has been praised endlessly for his historical work in that he has always argued like a historian and never as someone from faith. So don't try to kid me about Witherington, I have read Witherington and I know what is contained in his books and it clear thinking based on historical premises rather than the type of gutter trash that you read to keep yourself in your delusional thinking.

Yes, by the likes of his fellow conservative scholars. They contribute testimonials to one another's books and many of the books are published by conservative presses such as Intervarsity Christian Press, i.e. they are big fish in a very small pond of ultra-conservative Christians. Oh, and you don’t know what I’ve read so quit making assumptions.

Emphasis mine.

I have now shown that none of Witheringtons books were published by Varsity Press but I also showed that one of his books was published by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

This is typical of the deceitful debating style that many anti-theists such as yourself engage in. They make redicuous claims of mischaracterisation so they can dodge points they can't answer.

[Tassman]

Lets see, well first I said this:



So my claim was in terms to Witherington, who you earlier on included in this list of scholars who have books published by Varsity Press. You directly replied earlier to a segment of mine in regards to Witherington in this fashion.



Emphasis mine.

I have now shown that none of Witheringtons books were published by Varsity Press but I also showed that one of his books was published by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

This is typical of the deceitful debating style that many anti-theists such as yourself engage in. They make redicuous claims of mischaracterisation so they can dodge points they can't answer.

But you haven't. Typically, your overreaching assertions, replete with snide insults as usual, are wrong. According to Witherington's CV, It has like 13 things published by inter-varsity press - are none of those 13 things books?

[Tassman]

Typical of anti-theists like yourself to not answer points. Probably because you have no answer.

N/A

How do you know I have an agenda? You don't know me and don't kid on that you do. I came to Christianity because I through;ly belive it to be true based on the eivdence. I wasn't raised a Christian. I was raised in this secular hell-hole called Britain.

However, once again you fail to answer the points. Probably because you don't have any answers for me.

Oh! You don’t see you role as a Christian to evangelize? I thought this was incumbent on all Christians.

As for your “secular hell hole called Britain”, I disagree. And why is it a “hell hole”, because it’s secular? Most secular nations rate higher on the Human Development scale than the Christian USA. Would you prefer a theocracy as pushed by many US evangelicals?

You're the one in denial. I already showed that the Jesus Seminar's Criteria for dismissing passages was a bunch of bull and you couldn't even answer it. Probably because you don't have an answer.

Already answered!

Once again and pay attention: “The work of the Jesus Seminar is open to the public and anyone is free to review it, so cut this hysterical crap about peer review. It is its own peer review as well as being open to any other reviewer – even the conservatives whose agenda is to attack it. As its Mission Statement says in part, “Religion and bible scholars should conduct their deliberations in public and report the results to a broad, literate audience in simple, non-technical language”. And “all serious questions about religion—including biblical and dogmatic traditions—deserve research, discussion and resolution; no inquiry should be out of bounds”.

It's typical for delusional anti-theists such as yourself to ignore points and just go on insane dribbling rants.

This from Darth for whom insightlessness is an art form

My point was clear and well laid out and all you can do is dribble insane delusional garbage that isn't even worth being flushed down my toilet. You're completely insnae and you are a very dishonest and disengenious person.

I have proved you wrong with the peer review process. Witherington and Blomberg and others are peer reviewed not just by other conservative Christians but also by other scholars of varying beliefs. Your non-factual garbage is just that, It's completely delusional and nonsense.

As for the Westar Institute. Firstly it is NOT the Jesus Seminar. It may have hosted the Jesus Seminar but it is NOT the Jesus Seminar completely. Also the only people who would sign up to such a clearly left wing institution is far out left wing people. It does not convey a multitude or plethora of view points but it is strictly agenda driven.

Why the obsession with “insane dribbling”? Projecting again are we??

Your hatred and Christian bigotry knows no bounds. You are apoplectic about what the Jesus Seminar is not even attempting to do according to its own mission statement.

Your self-proclaimed “clear and well laid out” points were inapplicable to a body dedicated to the use of historical-critical methodology as I’ve noted many times. You continue to complain that it doesn’t “convey a multitude or plethora of viewpoints”, by which you mean it excludes consideration of Jesus the god/man - forgetting that the historical-critical method is not equipped to deal with supernaturalism.

And you forget that historical-critical methodology is the standard which applies to ALL historical research.

What you are demanding is special treatment for Jesus of the sort we find among the relative handful of apologist scholars.

You inaccurately toss “secular” and left wing” around as pejoratives, when what you really seem to mean is that Westar and its Jesus Seminar, and notable scholars like Ehrman, Ludmann and scores of others (by far the majority) don’t beg the question re Jesus and supernaturalism.

More ignoring points being made. You are off topic with this garbage. Get back on topic now and answer the points that were earlier made.

Whatever this means.

What other reason could it be?

You have no belief in God, you have no interest in looking at our point of view. Instead you sit there making baseless attacks at us, towards people who live on the other side of the globe who have no influence at all on anything you do in your life.

You are bitter, you are angry. Something happened in the past and you hold a grudge against all things Christian. Nobody here likes you but for some reason you stay and post more vitriol. This can only lead to insanity.

Darth, disagreement does not equate with borderline insanity or with other of your snide speculation re my motivation. And what do you know about borderline insanity that you are so obsessed with it hmmmmmmn?

I actually linked you to a link on historical methodoly earlier on and asked you to point out where it says where the criteria the Jesus Seminar used was listed but you didn't answer it.

I also explained how this criteria was extremely ridiculous but you just never explained how it wasn't. You just asserted that it wasn't. You have no argument, you didn't answer it. Most likely because you have no answer.

Your explanation of why the criteria for historical-critical methodology??? Who are you to make such an assessment? This is the standard methodology for historians – but you claim to know better apparently.

This methodology applies to the Jesus Seminar as well as all secular historians. It is disregarded by apologists because it cannot encompass the supernaturalism religious belief depends on. Just as evolution is often disregarded by evangelicals despite the plethora of evidence, because it doesn’t tally with their personal religious belief!

Thus certain types of Christianity promotes ignorance to preserve religious belief - one of the evils of religion.

Duh!!!! Yes, I did say it was from my previous post you retard. Your reading comprehension isn't very good is it. What do you think I mean when I say "Once again I will repeat just what I said........"

Once again just more baseless character assassination with no substance. You're really good at that aren't you Tassman. Just part of the borderline insanity and delusional drivel that anti-theists like you hold onto.

Get a grip, Darth. You’re hysterical again. I accused you of merely C&P replies from previous posts – as if they were any good the first time.

WL Craig is a theologian, he is qualified to talk about theological issues. He is also a philosopher. In fact he holds 4 degress in entirety, so I don't think that the pope even comes close to being the same level as WLC. His argument for the resurrection was an essay that he submitted that was graded and he got an A for it. Passed with flying marks. It has been praised by Biblical scholars as well, so they have recomended it also. One of his degrees is also in Church history, so has more of a grasp on history than the pope does.

Once again, the pope’s qualifications are similar to those of WL Craig.

From 1946 to 1951 he studied philosophy and theology in the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising and at the University of Munich.

He received his priestly ordination on 29 June 1951.

A year later he began teaching at the Higher School of Freising.

In 1953 he obtained his doctorate in theology with a thesis entitled "People and House of God in St Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church".

Four years later, under the direction of the renowned professor of fundamental theology Gottlieb Söhngen, he qualified for University teaching with a dissertation on: "The Theology of History in St Bonaventure"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...graphy_en.html

Regardless, the quote I used is valid and applies equally to evangelical scholars. Namely that there is a point in the study of the NT beyond the reach of the historical-critical method - and at this point faith is required.

It is not echoed by all scholars Tassman and you know this. Gary Habermas wrote the minimal facts thesis which states that we can reasonably conclude that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead based on the minimal facts of history. Furthermore, Richard Bauckham worte a book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which argues that a lot of the core information in the gospel accounts comes from eyewitness records. I could cite more but this should suffice.

The fact that you dishonestly deny this shows that you are not interested in learning but you only want to rant delusional diatribes.

Ah yes, the hilarious “innocent until proven guilty” school of scholarship i.e. the resurrection hypothesis of Habermas and miracles and everything else in the bible must be accepted as true unless it can be proved otherwise.

But what does one expect from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty where Habermas is on the faculty.

Regardless, he is promoting a minority position and is no more reliable than Bauckhman’s attempt to prove eyewitness reportage using Papias. Neither position is accepted by mainstream scholarship and for very good reason.

Your favorite scholars are hand-chosen by you because they reaffirm what you want to believe. Once again, this is not scholarship; this is apologetics!

I'm not losing heart at all. I recognise that all your wind is just that. It's just wind. Do us all a favour and shut up. Leave some of that oxygen for the rest of us you blow hard.

So what I publically declare that the Jesus Seminar is a crock and is full of crap. It must be true, after-all I publically declared it you retard.

And, how does one prove that the bible IS NOT the Word of God? This is the starting position of Crossan, Borg and co. They publically assent to a Statement of non-Faith that the bible must be errant – “must be errant”. Repeat: “must be errant”.

Utter nonsense!

“To say, as Withington and company do, that the bible is without error and that this is the basis of their scholarship is NOT the same as saying that scholars employing the historical-critical method are basing scholarship on an assumption that the bible is full of error.

The reverse of the concept of an inerrant bible is NOT the concept of an “errant bible”, as you ludicrously try to argue, but a bible that is subject to error given its compilation by fallible men. It can also contain much that is accurate – and it is the task of the scholars employing the historical-critical method to determine which is which.

Sigh!

It's your nonsense to begin with, I just serve it up and deliver it back right back at you. If you don't like to deal with nonsense, then I suggest you don't serve it up to begin with.

And I already told you that Witherington has never assumed that the Bible is without error. He always argues from a historians perspective, but you wouldn't know that because you dont read him. I'm still waiting for you to quote him in some form of manner from one of his books. I guess you didn't read any then huh? But you like to assume that these guys are oh so bad.

Witherington’s Asbury Seminary sees its role “to prepare theologically educated, sanctified, Spirit-filled men and women to evangelize and to spread scriptural holiness throughout the world through the love of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit and to the glory of God the Father.”

Blomberg’s Denver Seminary demands belief in an inerrant bible as does Habermas’ Liberty University.

Your favorite ‘scholars’ are ALL cut from the same cloth. Try reading Ehrman’s books for a dose of reality. He is not bound by affirmation statements.

Another thing you seem to be unaware of that these conservative scholars actually hold very differnt views to what a lot of conservative churches teach. Yes, the are conservative in a sense that they hold onto a lot of clear conservative Christian concepts but they also differ on a lot of things that churches would argue with them about. So to assdume that they are only there to "buttress the faith" is just plain ignorance at best. They have actually differed in opinion on a lot of things that churches teach. I think your popes quote probably enters the fray here. I believe the quote by the pope was talking about strictly Catholic issues regards to holding them by faith and not historically.

As for Erhman, you must be kicking yourself. His next book is going to be about defending the historicty of Jesus.

What are you on about? Erhman has never denied that that the man Jesus was a historical figure. Neither have I. The only problems are when Christians argue that the supernatural god/man Jesus is an historical figure when there is insufficient evidence for such a claim.

That's all I feel every time I read one of your posts. Don'y worry, once we finish this little tirade you'll be going back on my ignore list.

Ah yes. Running away is about your only option, Darth, given that you are unable to rebut my arguments. If you could you would. And the only “tirade” is yours.

Just speaking the truth.

You wish!

Here is a thought for you Tassman, how about actually representing the evidence correctly, instead of ignoring all the post resurrection appearences that even your beloved Gerd Ludemann accepted.

Once again, your ignorant completely of the facts. Taking the text as it what it says happened to be true what possible natural explanation can you have? Lets look at the events.

1) Jesus is crucified where he dies.Blood and water from his side where he was stabbed with a spear confirm this.

2) Empty tomb. Body is missing. Authroties cannot reveal his body to disprove claims made of a resurrection.

3) POST RESURRECTION APPEARENCES. The disciples and others not only state that they saw Jesus after his death but then suffer persecution, torture and even death for this claim. They state that Jesus was seen in a resurrection body which is physical but also glowing in a spirtual sense. The relgion of Christianity spreads fast, despite Christians being executed for their beliefs and many people convert, including those who were originally skeptical of the claims.

Tassman, you're talking rubbish. Paul did claim the resurrection took place. And he did claim it bodily. That is what a resurrection was. It was known to the Jews as a body being raised from the dead and this was shown undisptably by NT Wright in his books where he produced a mountain load of evidence to prove this. Your ignorance in this matter is a complete joke.

Also you were the one who wanted to use standard rules of history. Well, your 40-70 years for a written document in those times was really good and that oral tradition you just so trashed is reliable to a very accurate degree for between 150-200 years and that was determined by a ROMAN SECULAR historian by the name of Sherwin-White who looked at the new testament and considered the oral tradition used.

You see Tassman, you read trashy books that argue for a norse mythological model of oral tradition used in the Bible, which is just completely stupid considering that there are two more BETTER and vastly more likely models that have been forward by sensible historians. The first is the most likely model of Jewish Rabbinic oral tradition and the other not so likely, but still more likely than norse mythology, beduin oral tradition. Both of which, have been proven to be vastly reliable in their transmission. You wouldn't know anything about this though, because you're just a dunderhead who doesn't read about these things.

How about addressing the issue rather than pontificating? And it you continue to use fundy web sites at least reflect their actual arguments instead of posting a few half-digested C&P’s from them. Not that they are reliable to begin with..

There is nowhere near enough evidence to indicate a gross violation of the natural order occurred such as the alleged bodily resurrection. To claim a miracle one is required a 100% assurance that there can be no possible natural explanation. And even the most unlikely natural explanation is more likely than claiming a miracle occurred.

The post resurrection appearances are mentioned exclusively by early apologists with no external verification, based on embellished oral reportage and not recorded until the gospels were written 40 to 70 years after the event. The earliest Christian writings (e.g. Paul) make no mention of Jesus' fleshly resurrection. You assume this is what he meant but you are viewing Paul through the lens of the gospels.

All of your rationalizations re the reliability of oral tradition are secondary to the fact that the only reportage of the Jesus story was by apologists and the more sensational stuff, e.g. cadavers wandering around Jerusalem etc, is only found in the gospels.

Furthermore, while miracles were acceptable explanations in the credulous pre-scientific age. They are not acceptable today.

The New Testament is pretty clear Tassman. Why don't you offer a naturalistic explanation, dependant on one basis. And that basis is that it fits the evidence given. The truth of the matter is that you can't. NO natural explanation fits the evidence and heck even arguments about the text's unreliability have all crumbled in light of the evidence.

No natural alternative exists, so all that was left for sceptics was to attack the evidence or like you, just plain deny the evdence exists. The Jesus Seminar is a good example of this. They used unhistorical criteria in order to dismiss passages from the Bible for no good reason. They just said "oh Jesus wouldn't say this" and basically placed their own personal opinion into the fold for that one. "oh Jesus would say that he was God", "Oh Jesus wouldn't have taught them that", etc, etc. It was all a bunch of hooey to dismiss things for no good reason and YOU KNOW IT. So don't kid on that you don't.

Bzzt, wrong. You clearly said and you damn well say it again that "God did it isn't one of them". Quite clearly you are denying this as a possible answer and you even state that it is "highly improbable", based on what probability statistics I'm not sure. Perhaps you can offer statistical analysis of that one, perhaps using Bayes theorem.

The fact of the matter is, your probabilty here is just basically based on reasoning that you pulled from your backside rather than based on any evidence or numbers. You tout it like it's some sort of proven fact when in actuality it is just a subjective biased piece of crap that you made up from your delusional ranting mind.

Once again, no supernatural explanation is probable unless every possible natural explanation has been 100% ruled out. And you cannot do this.

There has never been verified evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe populated by supernatural deities, spirits and demons etc and to posit a supernatural explanation to an event occurring 2,000 years ago in a credulous age, when such things were taken for granted, is absurd.

Ironic, it really is. I was imitating the very behaviour that you have displayed on this web forum since I have known you. The whole delusional thing was started by you a LONG time ago. The whole "No, you're wrong........" cliche is something that you yourself do all the time. The whole "Swarm of....." piece is something you yourself have said in the past. If you don't like it then perhaps you should stop doing it yourself. I just thought I would use it to see if it was some kind of language you would actually understand rather than the ignorance you normally display. I guess not.

However anyway Tassman, if you really think that you get a bad rap here then you know where the door is. Nobody forces you to post here with a gun to youtr head, well I'm assuming not. If you don't like the treatment you get then quite simply get lost. This is a website owned by Christians and that's that. If you want to continue posting then do so but quit complaing about the treatment that you get and OH SO DESERVE!!!!!!! If you're just going to complain then get lost, just like I said. Nobody here will miss you and quite frankly nobody here likes you.

Yes I long ago recognized the expressions used previously by me which you have been repeating ad nauseam throughout this thread. But only someone like you would imagine that throwing them around at random, regardless of context, is actually making some sort of point.

Yes, this site is Christian owned and the thread I almost exclusively post in is Apologetics. Check the definition of Apologetics before you sit in judgment on who “OH SO DESERVES” what.

And what you mean by “frankly nobody here likes you” is that certain theists, like you, who are unable to defend their tenuous belief system, get angry at their own inability to do so. As well, I really don't care when people such as you dislike me. This is a discussion site not a personals column.

But I understand. Nobody likes to have their worldview shattered, especially when they have an emotional investment in it so as to escape from the “secular hell-hole” known as the real world.

[Darth Ovious]

But you haven't. Typically, your overreaching assertions, replete with snide insults as usual, are wrong. According to Witherington's CV, It has like 13 things published by inter-varsity press - are none of those 13 things books?

My mistake but you're assertions are overreaching in themselves. A whole 13????? Imagine that!!!!! a whole 13 out of 44 counts as "usually" in your world. So what about all the books not done by Intervarsity Press? Can we all read them your majesty.

http://benwitherington.com/cv.html

Witheringtons CV excluding Intervarsity Press

Making a Meal of It. Rethinking out Theology of the Lord's Supper Baylor, out this fall.

Troubled Waters. Rethinking our Theology of Baptism Baylor, 2007

Paul’s Letters to Philemon, the Colossians and the Ephesians. With Darlene Hyatt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2007

What Have They Done with Jesus? Harper, 2006

The Gospel of Luke. With A. J. Levine. No date. New Cambridge Bible Commentary.
Edited by Ben Witherington III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006

Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. No date. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2006

The Inner Circle of Jesus, in progress with Harper Collins, maybe out 2006.

The New Testament Story. 2004. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.

Paul’s Letter to the Romans, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. With Darlene Hyatt.
2004. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Edited by a Moderator •

© source where applicable

• Edited by a Moderator •

So this one was also published by A University academic press.

And this one:

Witheringtons CV

Jesus, Paul and the End of the World, A Comparative Study in New Testament
Eschatology. 1992. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press/Exeter: Paternoster Press.

© source where applicable

So can we read these ones as well just as long as we don't get an Intervarsity Press copy.


That was fun, now lets look at N.T. Wrights list shall we.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/NTW_Publications.htm

The ones in red are by Intervarisity Press.

N.T. Wright Publications

2012 *Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Vol. IV of Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress (forthcoming)

2011 Simply Jesus. London: SPCK; San Francisco: HarperOne (forthcoming)

2011 The New Testament for Everyone. (Provisional title) London: SPCK; San Francisco: HarperOne (forthcoming) (my full translation of the NT, taken from the various ‘Everyone’ volumes)

2011 Revelation for Everyone. London: SPCK; Louisville: WJKP (forthcoming)

2011 Early Christian Letters for Everyone. London: SPCK; Louisville: WJKP (forthcoming)

2011 Scripture and the Authority of God, second edn with two substantial new chapters. London: SPCK; San Francisco: HarperOne (former American title: The Last Word)

2011 Lent for Everyone: Matthew. London: SPCK

2010 *Virtue Reborn (US title After You Believe). London: SPCK; San Francisco: HarperOne

Small Faith, Great God, second edn. With new preface. London: SPCK; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press (see 1978)• Edited by a Moderator •

© source where applicable

A few by IVP but not a lot. I still do not see the "usually" part in this. Perhaps somebody else can show me.

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Please do not copy and paste that much material from a copywrited source or website. Thanks,

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[MaxVel]

In summary: Witherington's arguments remain unread and unaddressed by Tassman, rejected because of the publishing house that has published some of his books.

Textbook genetic fallacy. But Tassman is winning this argument, because now you're discussing who published what books, rather than talking about what the books actually say.

[bertatberts]

Not only has the divinity of Jesus been past over, at the Jesus Seminar but his existence as a man is more seriously being questioned. however I do think they're could be wrong on that point. Yet some of the greatest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A damning literature dealing with this inquiry, intensely serious and thorough in its research, is growing in all countries, and spreading like wildfire, that Christ is a myth. The question is one of great importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of extreme significance. The Christian religion has been a fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has drunk for centuries the best of mankind. It has slowed the march of civilization, and destroyed some of the greatest minds: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of brotherhood of humanity. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Live?" goes to the very basis of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon the decision depends, to some degree, as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Jesus had or hadn't lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heroes whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

[MaxVel]

Not only has the divinity of Jesus been past over, at the Jesus Seminar but his existence as a man is more seriously being questioned. however I do think they're could be wrong on that point.

I hope after these errors you're not going to correct anyone else's English...

Yet some of the greatest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all.

Can you name some names? I'd like to find out who these great scholars are....

A damning literature dealing with this inquiry, intensely serious and thorough in its research, is growing in all countries, and spreading like wildfire, that Christ is a myth.

Hyperbole.

The question is one of great importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of extreme significance. The Christian religion has been a fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has drunk for centuries the best of mankind. It has slowed the march of civilization,

Only if you define civilization to mean 'secular humanist society'.

and destroyed some of the greatest minds: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement,

Baloney. Go and live in Mao's atheist China if you think Christianity is so bad.

and of brotherhood of humanity. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete.

True. So why don't you quit before your side loses completely and utterly?

The question, "Did Jesus Live?" goes to the very basis of the conflict between reason and faith;

Only if you're using a non-biblical definition of faith, a definition that none of the Christians here on TWeb would endorse as what they mean by 'faith'.

and upon the decision depends, to some degree, as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Jesus had or hadn't lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science.

Well, a question of history, to be more precise.

The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief.

I think it's fairly safe to say that Jesus' simple existence is as well established as most other contemporary figures, and better established than many events and people we quite willingly accept as historical. Juice had a great thread about that a while ago.

Edit to add: Actually it was comparing the accounts of the Resurrection with the accounts of the events of Caesar's assassination. Interesting stuff.

If no evidence for his existence can be found;

There is evidence for His existence, so you can rest easy.

then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heroes whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

[Juice]

Yet some of the greatest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A damning literature dealing with this inquiry, intensely serious and thorough in its research, is growing in all countries, and spreading like wildfire, that Christ is a myth.

Name one credible scholar that seriously defends the Christ-myth.

The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief.

History says Jesus did exist. So does the "thinking world." Clearly you are not part of the later group if you think otherwise.

[Darth Ovious]

You have to be freaking kidding me!!!!!!!

"Notice
Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.
TheologyWeb Campus"

[bertatberts]

Name one credible scholar that seriously defends the Christ-myth.

Did you actually mean to word it that way.

"It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundations of a historic Jesus ... who was little more than a teacher of practical philosophy." – J. Macquarrie (An Existential Theology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Macquarrie
There is also Thomas L. Thompson who concludes Jesus and David are both amalgams of Near Eastern mythological themes originating in the Bronze Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson
And Tom Harpur who states Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur

History says Jesus did exist. So does the "thinking world."

Where! I have already stated, that I think a person called Jesus existed, however not a divine biblical Jesus. But due to the extreme lack of evidence even Theologians doubt his historicity

Clearly you are not part of the later group if you think otherwise.

I merely posted it up, for all to read. There is a lot doubt that even a historical Jesus lived, that is all. You don't have to like it.

[Darth Ovious]

N/A



Oh! You don’t see you role as a Christian to evangelize? I thought this was incumbent on all Christians.

As for your “secular hell hole called Britain”, I disagree. And why is it a “hell hole”, because it’s secular? Most secular nations rate higher on the Human Development scale than the Christian USA. Would you prefer a theocracy as pushed by many US evangelicals?



Already answered!

Once again and pay attention: “The work of the Jesus Seminar is open to the public and anyone is free to review it, so cut this hysterical crap about peer review. It is its own peer review as well as being open to any other reviewer – even the conservatives whose agenda is to attack it. As its Mission Statement says in part, “Religion and bible scholars should conduct their deliberations in public and report the results to a broad, literate audience in simple, non-technical language”. And “all serious questions about religion—including biblical and dogmatic traditions—deserve research, discussion and resolution; no inquiry should be out of bounds”.



This from Darth for whom insightlessness is an art form



Why the obsession with “insane dribbling”? Projecting again are we??

Your hatred and Christian bigotry knows no bounds. You are apoplectic about what the Jesus Seminar is not even attempting to do according to its own mission statement.

Your self-proclaimed “clear and well laid out” points were inapplicable to a body dedicated to the use of historical-critical methodology as I’ve noted many times. You continue to complain that it doesn’t “convey a multitude or plethora of viewpoints”, by which you mean it excludes consideration of Jesus the god/man - forgetting that the historical-critical method is not equipped to deal with supernaturalism.

And you forget that historical-critical methodology is the standard which applies to ALL historical research.

What you are demanding is special treatment for Jesus of the sort we find among the relative handful of apologist scholars.

You inaccurately toss “secular” and left wing” around as pejoratives, when what you really seem to mean is that Westar and its Jesus Seminar, and notable scholars like Ehrman, Ludmann and scores of others (by far the majority) don’t beg the question re Jesus and supernaturalism.



Whatever this means.



Darth, disagreement does not equate with borderline insanity or with other of your snide speculation re my motivation. And what do you know about borderline insanity that you are so obsessed with it hmmmmmmn?



Your explanation of why the criteria for historical-critical methodology??? Who are you to make such an assessment? This is the standard methodology for historians – but you claim to know better apparently.

This methodology applies to the Jesus Seminar as well as all secular historians. It is disregarded by apologists because it cannot encompass the supernaturalism religious belief depends on. Just as evolution is often disregarded by evangelicals despite the plethora of evidence, because it doesn’t tally with their personal religious belief!

Thus certain types of Christianity promotes ignorance to preserve religious belief - one of the evils of religion.



Get a grip, Darth. You’re hysterical again. I accused you of merely C&P replies from previous posts – as if they were any good the first time.



Once again, the pope’s qualifications are similar to those of WL Craig.

From 1946 to 1951 he studied philosophy and theology in the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising and at the University of Munich.

He received his priestly ordination on 29 June 1951.

A year later he began teaching at the Higher School of Freising.

In 1953 he obtained his doctorate in theology with a thesis entitled "People and House of God in St Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church".

Four years later, under the direction of the renowned professor of fundamental theology Gottlieb Söhngen, he qualified for University teaching with a dissertation on: "The Theology of History in St Bonaventure"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...graphy_en.html

Regardless, the quote I used is valid and applies equally to evangelical scholars. Namely that there is a point in the study of the NT beyond the reach of the historical-critical method - and at this point faith is required.



Ah yes, the hilarious “innocent until proven guilty” school of scholarship i.e. the resurrection hypothesis of Habermas and miracles and everything else in the bible must be accepted as true unless it can be proved otherwise.

But what does one expect from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty where Habermas is on the faculty.

Regardless, he is promoting a minority position and is no more reliable than Bauckhman’s attempt to prove eyewitness reportage using Papias. Neither position is accepted by mainstream scholarship and for very good reason.

Your favorite scholars are hand-chosen by you because they reaffirm what you want to believe. Once again, this is not scholarship; this is apologetics!



Utter nonsense!

“To say, as Withington and company do, that the bible is without error and that this is the basis of their scholarship is NOT the same as saying that scholars employing the historical-critical method are basing scholarship on an assumption that the bible is full of error.

The reverse of the concept of an inerrant bible is NOT the concept of an “errant bible”, as you ludicrously try to argue, but a bible that is subject to error given its compilation by fallible men. It can also contain much that is accurate – and it is the task of the scholars employing the historical-critical method to determine which is which.

Sigh!



Witherington’s Asbury Seminary sees its role “to prepare theologically educated, sanctified, Spirit-filled men and women to evangelize and to spread scriptural holiness throughout the world through the love of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit and to the glory of God the Father.”

Blomberg’s Denver Seminary demands belief in an inerrant bible as does Habermas’ Liberty University.

Your favorite ‘scholars’ are ALL cut from the same cloth. Try reading Ehrman’s books for a dose of reality. He is not bound by affirmation statements.



What are you on about? Erhman has never denied that that the man Jesus was a historical figure. Neither have I. The only problems are when Christians argue that the supernatural god/man Jesus is an historical figure when there is insufficient evidence for such a claim.



Ah yes. Running away is about your only option, Darth, given that you are unable to rebut my arguments. If you could you would. And the only “tirade” is yours.



You wish!



How about addressing the issue rather than pontificating? And it you continue to use fundy web sites at least reflect their actual arguments instead of posting a few half-digested C&P’s from them. Not that they are reliable to begin with..

There is nowhere near enough evidence to indicate a gross violation of the natural order occurred such as the alleged bodily resurrection. To claim a miracle one is required a 100% assurance that there can be no possible natural explanation. And even the most unlikely natural explanation is more likely than claiming a miracle occurred.

The post resurrection appearances are mentioned exclusively by early apologists with no external verification, based on embellished oral reportage and not recorded until the gospels were written 40 to 70 years after the event. The earliest Christian writings (e.g. Paul) make no mention of Jesus' fleshly resurrection. You assume this is what he meant but you are viewing Paul through the lens of the gospels.

All of your rationalizations re the reliability of oral tradition are secondary to the fact that the only reportage of the Jesus story was by apologists and the more sensational stuff, e.g. cadavers wandering around Jerusalem etc, is only found in the gospels.

Furthermore, while miracles were acceptable explanations in the credulous pre-scientific age. They are not acceptable today.



Once again, no supernatural explanation is probable unless every possible natural explanation has been 100% ruled out. And you cannot do this.

There has never been verified evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe populated by supernatural deities, spirits and demons etc and to posit a supernatural explanation to an event occurring 2,000 years ago in a credulous age, when such things were taken for granted, is absurd.



Yes I long ago recognized the expressions used previously by me which you have been repeating ad nauseam throughout this thread. But only someone like you would imagine that throwing them around at random, regardless of context, is actually making some sort of point.

Yes, this site is Christian owned and the thread I almost exclusively post in is Apologetics. Check the definition of Apologetics before you sit in judgment on who “OH SO DESERVES” what.

And what you mean by “frankly nobody here likes you” is that certain theists, like you, who are unable to defend their tenuous belief system, get angry at their own inability to do so. As well, I really don't care when people such as you dislike me. This is a discussion site not a personals column.

But I understand. Nobody likes to have their worldview shattered, especially when they have an emotional investment in it so as to escape from the “secular hell-hole” known as the real world.

I did reply to this but it has been lost in the interwebz. I should have probably have saved it in word or something. You go and find it because I can't be bothered typing it out again today and to be honest I can't be bothered going through all this crap again.

Welcome back to my ignore list.

[Darth Ovious]

Did you actually mean to word it that way.

"It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundations of a historic Jesus ... who was little more than a teacher of practical philosophy." – J. Macquarrie (An Existential Theology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Macquarrie
There is also Thomas L. Thompson who concludes Jesus and David are both amalgams of Near Eastern mythological themes originating in the Bronze Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson
And Tom Harpur who states Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur
Where! I have already stated, that I think a person called Jesus existed, however not a divine biblical Jesus. But due to the extreme lack of evidence even Theologians doubt his historicity
I merely posted it up, for all to read. There is a lot doubt that even a historical Jesus lived, that is all. You don't have to like it.

In fact, you can go on my ignore list as well. I'm not typing out lengthy replies to idiots like you if they are just going to get lost in the process.

[Juice]

Did you actually mean to word it that way.

Your words actually - “Christ is a myth.”

"It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundations of a historic Jesus ... who was little more than a teacher of practical philosophy." – J. Macquarrie (An Existential Theology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Macquarrie

Your link says this, ”In that book, Macquarrie commented on what he called 9 historical figures who were viewed by their followers as mediators between the human and the divine (however it was conceived), Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammad.”

There is also Thomas L. Thompson who concludes Jesus and David are both amalgams of Near Eastern mythological themes originating in the Bronze Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson

This link says nothing of the sort.

And Tom Harpur who states Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur

A journalist with an M.A.? This is your world class scholar? Are you for real?

Where! I have already stated, that I think a person called Jesus existed, however not a divine biblical Jesus. But due to the extreme lack of evidence even Theologians doubt his historicity.

No they don’t.
.

I merely posted it up, for all to read.

And in so doing demonstrated that you wish to imply Jesus may have been a myth. You don’t want to come right and say it because you know you’ll be laughed at even more than you already have been.

There is a lot doubt that even a historical Jesus lived, that is all. You don't have to like it.

If there is so much doubt among scholars name one credible one that argues Jesus never existed. There should be piles of them.

[Rational Gaze]

Welcome back to my ignore list.

Heh, maybe we should hold competitions. Periodically take Tassman of ignore and see who can tolerate his mind numbing idiocy the longest before butting the buffoon back on ignore?

[Darth Ovious]

Heh, maybe we should hold competitions. Periodically take Tassman of ignore and see who can tolerate his mind numbing idiocy the longest before butting the buffoon back on ignore?

Just seemed like a good point to do it. I went through all that hassle to reply to the nonsense only to have it disappear.