There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Vansmack51]

Wrong. Every historian accepts that Josephus and Tacitus wrote the passages that refer to Jesus. Try again.

That is NOT true. Even the majority of Christian Bible scholars admit they are rank forgeries. No one but Jesus of history hoaxers claim hearsay accounts are evidence anyway.

[Challenger Grim]

Challenger, bro....

Can you try and make your posts longer than your signature? I gets confused...

Oops.

zoidberg.jpg

[Challenger Grim]

That is NOT true. Even the majority of Christian Bible scholars admit they are rank forgeries.

Such as....?

Care to name names or post surveys proving this point?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

[Vansmack51]

Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

[Vansmack51]

Poof

[Challenger Grim]

Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

Sources for these? Like... which year and edition of encyclopaedia britannica?

Oh, and I'm sure there's more than 6 bible scholars (which there would have to be for 4 of them to be a "majority") so we're still waiting on your proof.

[Vansmack51]

Sources for these? Like... which year and edition of encyclopaedia britannica?

Oh, and I'm sure there's more than 6 bible scholars (which there would have to be for 4 of them to be a "majority") so we're still waiting on your proof.

ROFL! Where's YOUR proof that Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote these passages? What's that? You don't have any proof? Nope, you have faith that they wrote them. Well I don't and neither does any other intelligent person. And what is so funny about all this is that I already proved Jospephus is not relaible anyway. He claims to have witnessed a giant casting out demons, claimed Hercules was a real person and made a lot of other ridiculous claims. Plus even if he did write these passages they prove absolutely nothing - except perhaps just how desperate the Liars for Jesus crowd really is. So funny.

[Hamster]

Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

lifted word for word from an essay from 1922, viva freethought

[Xru]

ROFL! Where's YOUR proof that Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote these passages? What's that? You don't have any proof? Nope, you have faith that they wrote them. Well I don't and neither does any other intelligent person. And what is so funny about all this is that I already proved Jospephus is not relaible anyway. He claims to have witnessed a giant casting out demons, claimed Hercules was a real person and made a lot of other ridiculous claims. Plus even if he did write these passages they prove absolutely nothing - except perhaps just how desperate the Liars for Jesus crowd really is. So funny.

Epistemological Nihilism . . . yo, got to be careful with that one or you'll seem like a fool;) Very hard to justify the extreme version you are taking.

[Rational Gaze]

That is NOT true. Even the majority of Christian Bible scholars admit they are rank forgeries. No one but Jesus of history hoaxers claim hearsay accounts are evidence anyway.

Sorry chump:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...97#post3243297
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...39#post3243339
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...79#post3243379

[Challenger Grim]

ROFL! Where's YOUR proof that Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote these passages? What's that? You don't have any proof? Nope, you have faith that they wrote them. Well I don't and neither does any other intelligent person. And what is so funny about all this is that I already proved Jospephus is not relaible anyway. He claims to have witnessed a giant casting out demons, claimed Hercules was a real person and made a lot of other ridiculous claims. Plus even if he did write these passages they prove absolutely nothing - except perhaps just how desperate the Liars for Jesus crowd really is. So funny.

I didn't make any claim about Josephus and Tacitus. You said:

Even the majority of Christian Bible scholars admit they are rank forgeries.

And I demanded proof of this mythical "majority". So far, you've provided 4. Last I checked, there's a lot more than 6 bible scholars (the maximum possible where 4 is still a majority).

Thus we can declare:
MYTH DEBUNKED.

Also:
VANSMACK51 DISHONEST.

Sheesh, it's like you guys have no intellectual discipline.

[Doug Shaver]

Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."

That's four against Josephus. That a long way from a majority. You also claimed that a majority also think the same thing about Tacitus, but so far you've got zero evidence for that claim.

[Doug Shaver]

No one but Jesus of history hoaxers claim hearsay accounts are evidence anyway.

I take it you've never read anything that epistemologists have to say about what can constitute evidence?

[Tassman]

Nope, you said X. Then you denied ever saying X. Despite the fact you had said X. Ergo, you contradicted yourself. Ergo, you are still an idiot. Cheque please.

Your claim that my whole argument was contradictory is wrong. It was NOT contradictory and you know it was not. You have now been reduced to concentrating on a claimed, un-sourced, out-of-context, seeming contradiction over one word – “theoretical” (not the argument as such) and attempting, in a non-astute, un-gentlemanly and downright dishonest way to generalize that Tassman’s arguments are contradictory. This is standard stuff for RG, laughably renamed as ‘An Astute Gentleman’ , but still the cheat regardless of the screen-name.

[Tassman]

I quite clearly, and correctly, noted that: What is accepted by the majority of scholars is that Jesus definitely existed, and that events occurred that resulted in the disciples believing Jesus had performed miracle and rose from the dead." Again, how this amounts to me saying: "the majority of scholars accepted that Jesus actually rose from the dead"isnot clear.Your ability to read X, and conclude that it says Y is really quite peculiar, then again it does explain how you are able to say Z, and then deny ever saying Z.

I am noting that your argument asserts the majority of scholars as believing that “something happened” to make the disciples believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You also said in #1350 that “it is universally accepted that something occurred”.

This is the point. It is NOT universally accepted that something happened.

Certainly, the majority of scholars agree that the early Christians believed something miraculous occurred, but not that something miraculous actually DID occur. And given that the majority of non-apologist scholars do not accept that the NT accounts were eye-witness reports we cannot know what, if anything, occurred. Especially as the majority of non-apologist scholars consider that the earliest accounts of the resurrection depict some form of visionary resurrection, NOT a physical one.

It is a shame that you have to stoop to such incredible lows, but then it is expected considering your complete and total inability to address any argument whatsoever, and your complete and total absence of knowledge in everything related to the field of history.

Off point! Bald assertions and gratuitous ad homs! Typical AAG/RG crap!

No argument, just Tassman trying to steer attention away from his own self-contradiction by projecting his failings onto others, as per his usual.

Mere psychological projection by RG/AAG!

Wrong again. Historians who practice correct historical methodology have no such delusions. The only way you can a priori dismiss miracle claims as viable historical hypotheses is by smuggling in your personal metaphysical views into historical analysis, which is an invalid approach to honest historical enquiry.

Please explain how miracles are validated and give examples of miracles which historians accept as explaining ANY non-Christian event in history.

My argument stands: Miracles cannot be verified and have no place in Historical/Critical methodology. They have NEVER been used by ANY scholar to explain ANY historical occurrence - EXCEPT by “special pleading” Christian apologist ‘scholars’.

More gratuitous special pleading and circular reasoning in lieu of argument.

Bald assertion! Attempted parody!

More gratuitous non-sequiturs and red herrings in lieu of argument.

More bald assertions from RG/AAG.

More gratuitous ad hominems and poisoning the well in lieu of argument. Once again, you are unable to refute a single argument or proffer a single item of evidence in your defence and so are forced to utilise such tactics, as they are all you have.


Kind of odd that all the scholars you name use correct historical methodology. Whereas those of the Jesus Seminar, et al. repeatedly go against it. Once again, your red herrings and ad hominems do not make valid arguments.

Nope! They do not.

The scholars named, i.e. the likes of Habermas, Witherington, WL Craig, Blomberg and Daniel B Wallace ALL affirm their support for the following Doctrinal Statement (or similar) as per the following from Dallas Seminary:

“We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...”

This automatically preempts the basic premise of Historical/Critical methodology. Biblical texts cannot be assumed to be divinely inspired. Thus the truth claims made by a biblical text risk refutation and this possibility is in direct contradiction of the Doctrinal Statements made by the above scholars.

There can be NO instances of special pleading in history.

What a coincidence, "apologist" scholars ARE open to refutation. The problem is: no refutation has ever been forthcoming. Whereas the writings of the Jesus Seminar, et al. are chock full to the brim of sloppy historical methodology, inconsistent application of criteria, special pleading, and outright a priori assuming their conclusions to be correct and smuggling in their personal views. Contrasted with actual scholars, who suspend their personal beliefs when working with the Gospels, and who utilise a variety of vigorous historical criteria and critical methodology in their approach. Of course, since you have never read any of it, I am not surprised that you do not know this.

Re the bolded: It is no coincidence that you completely missed the point – just par for the course for RG/AAG.

The point is that the “truth claims of scripture are NOT considered open to refutation” by evangelical Christians. And this is specifically declared by the apologist scholars listed above in the Doctrinal Statements they assent to - thus invalidating any claim to be employing Historical/Critical methodology.

OTOH, the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, whom you feel impelled to denigrate (presumably because you dislike their objectively reached conclusions), DO follow the principles of the Historical/Critical method:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Mission/mission.html

Well, that pretty much disqualifies the entirety of the Jesus Seminar, the Form Critics, et al. who repeatedly engage in special pleading.

Bald assertion and mindless bravado! The reverse is actually the case. See above. But don’t let facts intrude on your fantasy.

Well, if you had ever done any amount of research in your life, then you would already know that these facts are widely attested.

"...man’s highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement .”
Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Yale University Press, (1985), p244

"Within the context of late Jewish apocalyptic thought, to claim the resurrection of a single individual before the end of the world was to introduce quite a new element." - [FONT=Arial]Murray Harris, Raised Immortal, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (1985), p116

Widely attested by whom? Just love your vague, intimations of authority, without actually saying anything.

More to the point, this is relevant to Historical/Critical methodology how, exactly?