There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[37818]

No sorry, I don't understand it that way, how can faith be reasonable and true?
Because by definition faith is unreasonable because it is belief without evidence.

That is not the primary definition of faith. And that is a more recent pejorative definition of religious faith.

Noah Webster’s Dictionary 1828


FAITH, n. [L. fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. In the Greek Lexicon of Hederic it is said, the primitive signification of the verb is to bind and draw or lead, as signifies a rope or cable. But this remark is a little incorrect. The sense of the verb, from which that of rope and binding is derived, is to strain, to draw, and thus to bind or make fast. A rope or cable is that which makes fast. Heb.]

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.

2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.

3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar.

4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.

Being justified by faith. Rom 5.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb 11.

For we walk by faith, and not by sight. 2 Cor 5.

With the heart man believeth to righteousness. Rom 10.

The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind, which is called trust or confidence, exercised towards the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior.

Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God.

Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God.

Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; or a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them.

5. The object of belief; a doctrine or system of doctrines believed; a system of revealed truths received by christians.

They heard only, that he who persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. Gal 1.

6. The promises of God, or his truth and faithfulness.

shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Rom 3.

7. An open profession of gospel truth.

Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Rom 1.

8. A persuasion or belief of the lawfulness of things indifferent.

Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Rom 14.

9. Faithfulness; fidelity; a strict adherence to duty and fulfillment of promises.

Her failing, while her faith to me remains, I would conceal.

Children in whom is no faith. Deu 32.

10. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity. He violated his plighted faith.

For you alone I broke my faith with injured Palamon.

11. Sincerity; honesty; veracity; faithfulness. We ought in good faith, to fulfill all our engagements.

12. Credibility or truth. Unusual.]

The faith of the foregoing narrative.

Well that would be pointless as they all point to a preponderance of evidence against an historical biblical jesus. Not one verifies a divinity, they may point to a mortal man, but that is all, but even that is suspect.

So you are going to be closed minded about your alleged evidence. The fact is Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person - man. That this Jesus was the Son of the living God, incarnate, is evidenced by the claims of the bodily resurrection. Some of that evidence you have alleged to be forgeries. But then your mind is made up. So unless you are willing to persuade me, which it seems you are not.

[bertatberts]

That is not the primary definition of faith. And that is a more recent pejorative definition of religious faith.

Noah Webster’s Dictionary 1828

1. Belief; (see below the reason for emphasis) the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.

Circular reasoning using a 183 year old biblical dictionary to prove your point when every other dictionary in the world contradicts it, makes it a moot point, sorry!

From the Webster 2010 dictionary.

faith (fāt̸h)

noun

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence


Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

And from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary.

: firm belief in something for which there is no proof(

My emphasis.
And in your very own 1828 biblical dictionary it states.
Belief : Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony In other words without evidence. So you are happy to accept subjective anecdotal information, as truth without verifying it as such. Well that is your prerogative, though not a wise one. Delibero Nescius.

So you are going to be closed minded about your alleged evidence.

You asked me to choose one, I explained why, it was pointless, and why are you presenting a strawman.
If you like you could try to prove a biblical jesus existed, but unless you can get myself and people like me to suspend belief in the natural universe, you are heading for an impossible task.

The fact is Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person - man.

Yes, a jesus person is possible.

That this Jesus was the Son of the living God, incarnate, is evidenced by the claims of the bodily resurrection.

Not proven anywhere, just asserted without evidence.

Some of that evidence you have alleged to be forgeries.

No, as already said in my last post, No extra-biblical evidence, be it right wrong or indifferent, points to a biblically divine jesus.

But then your mind is made up.

No, I'm not close minded, I would need to have a belief with only one possible answer, and you see I'm not theistic, I weigh all possibilities, and if more come along I will weigh them to, I don't accept one just because it feels right, I would only accept it, if it was obvious via the evidence it presented.

So unless you are willing to persuade me, which it seems you are not.

I don't try to indoctrinate children or adults that is the goal of the theist, you are the only person who can change your mind, no amount pushing, by me or anybody else, will be able to do that now you are an adult. Only critical thought using Sense, Reason and Intellect will.
Millions have, just by actually opening their minds, and acknowledging that could be wrong and researching that possibility.

[The Pixie]

Darth Ovious

Then they wouldn't be a credible historian.

Ah, the inevitable "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

The same way that a scientist who denies evolution isn't a credible scientist.

Hey, I thought about using that analogy too. See, scientists would say that the theory of evolution is not a fact, just like the existence of Jesus is not a fact. We cannot know what actually happened so long ago.

It was obvious what he meant when he started posting trash to try and refute Tacitus.

Only if you approach his posts assuming he is a Jesus myther.

Once again you state exactly what we were arguing against in the first place you nutcase. If you get rid of all the evidence that shows Jesus existed then why in the heck would you believe otherwise? What evidence would you use?

There is that black-and-white thing again. Either Josephus is true, or is rejected out right. If the Gospels are accurate, or must be rejected out right.

The reality is that we do not know if Josephus wrote about Jesus is not, we can only estimate how likely it is (and naturally that estimate will be biased by our own viewpoint). The reality is that Gospels are going to be true is parts, and embellishment in other parts (seriously, the two nativities are so wildly different that one has to be an embellishment).

I do not know about bertatberts, but I think the Gospels, and the rise of Christianity itself, do give good evidence that Jesus existed. Most scholars seem to think there was a proto-Mark that described Jesus' works, and many believe in a sayings document, Q. I think these give good evidence that Jesus existed (but not enogh to call it fact).

Here, I think a guy named Chumpachomps may have existed in 1st century Palestine. I don't have any credible historical sources to back this but you'll agree that a guy named Chumpachomps may have existed anyway.

I find that unlikely, because from the context, I think that is a made up name. If you had found a Hebrew name, then this might work better; such a person might have existed. But there would be rather less evidence than there is for Jesus.

This is the black-and-white thing again. You live in a world where things are either true or false, with no room for doubt (which is back to the hard rock of certainty). Real life is not like that. We do not know what happened 2000 years ago, we can only make educated guesses based on the available evidence. To me, that evidence points to a high likelihood that Jesus existed, but it does not prove it as fact.

Pix: Of course you will not believe him. Somehow you have to rationalise him agreeing with me, and it is so much easier to assume an atheist is lying than to admit you got it wrong. There is that hard rock of certainty that I mentioned last time. Everything you see has to be filtered and distorted to fit your worldview, because changing your worldview is not possible.

DO: Why would it be part of my worldview to think that all atheists are wrong about everything?

Please, do not twist my words; I never said you think atheists are wrong about everything. It only makes you look dishonest, and I do not think that that is the case.

Don't be stupid, it's clear what bertatberts was arguing for even if he denies it now. He even said the words "no evidence for a historical Jesus" in plenty of parts in his first post. This is the Jesus Myth crap that Christians in this thread are arguing against.

It is only clear when you filter it though your perception. What you have done is assumed anything he said that suggests he not a Jesus myther is just him being dishonest. Then you can happily ignore all that evidence, and just look at the evidence that he is a Jesus myther. And then you can confirm your suspicion that he is a Jesus myther.

I can do the same to show you are Russian. Anything you say or do that might suggest otherwise, is clearly you dishonestly pretending not to be Russian, and so can be dismissed. Everything that remains naturally points to you being Russian. Only, of course, you are not Russian.

Like i said, I think a guy named Chumpachomps may have existed in 1st century Palestine. I don't have any credible historical sources to back this but you'll agree that a guy named Chumpachomps may have existed anyway.

Are you saying there is as much evidence for Chumpachomps as there is for Jesus? I think there is considerably more for Jesus. I think the evidence we have, unreliable though it may be, points to Jesus existing and Chumpachomps being a name you just made up.

I cannot be sure of both, but I can live with that uncertainty.

Pix: By the way, did you spot the bit in the OP where he said this:
"This article is only about the historicity of Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
Sure, he was quoting someone else (Wikipedia to be exact), but a strange quote to include if he thought Jesus did not exist. But then, you do not worry about facts, do you? You already know what bertatberts thinks, what with you being a mind reader and all. You have that hard rock of certainty to cling to like a limpet, and nothing, no amount of evidence, will ever prise you off.

DO: That was him doing his hand trick again. Left hand says one thing while the right one says something completely different. I already showed this in my reply to him.

It does not matter what the guy actually posted, you know he is a Jesus myther, and will just filter out anything he said to the contrary.

I get it.

Lets see if we can bertatberts to state the words "Jesus did exist, although I do not believe he was God".

Lets hear him say that and then I will be satisfied.

There is that black-and-white thinking again. Either bertatberts accepts the existence of Jesus as true, or he thinks it is false. No room for doubt in DO's world!

It's called moving the goalposts. Learn what it is.

He did that in the OP. Are you saying that he was moving the goalposts before anyone had replied to him?

Hmm, I guess I do need to learn about moving the goalposts; I thought that was something that happened during an argument.

Pix to RG: Of course my post is dismissed. There is that hard rock of certainty, and nothing but nothing will assail it. bertatberts has made his position clear, and still RG wants to pretend he meant something else. No way are triffling things like evidence going to change his mind.

DO: Now, now Pixie. You're not claiming that RG is willfully misrepresenting bertatberts here, despite the fact that you have just said that you weren't.

I meant RG is pretending to himself, that he is deluding himself. That delusion is part of why he misread the OP. Did you notice I said "No way are triffling things like evidence going to change his mind" That means I think in RG's mind bertatberts is a Jesus myther. Therefore RG is being sincere in what he says; he really does think is a Jesus myther, he is not trying to deliberately mislead anyone.

Once again, DO, you have misread what I said. I was certainly not as clear, I accept, but what we see here is a trend for you to assume an atheist means one thing, and to ignore what he actually wrote.

[Darth Ovious]

Rogue, DO, RG:

There is no evidence for a biblical divine jesus, therefore it makes a mortal jesus redundant. So it doesn't really matter if there were a man with a messiah complex walking round talking the good talk and fighting the good fight.because this makes the NT moot too, thus christianity is moot, the divine thing is the backbone for it.

The evidence for a Biblical devine Jesus is the Bible you moron. You may not like the evidence and you may use moronic "arguments" against it but it doesn't change the fact that it is still evidence.

Also it does not make a mortal Jesus redundant. That's just stupid. Does the fact that the Caesars were only mortal men make all their history redundant? No it does not. There are still skeptics out there who have a healthy respect for Christianity and still find the historicity of Jesus facinating.

And you accuse us of looking in black & white views. Gheez.

There isn't any evidence for a magic jesus, least we suspend all belief in the natural world and accept that a magic man can both raise and be raised from the dead, Ie make dead flesh live again, change the chemical make up of one thing (by adding nothing, merely by thinking it) to a different combination, Curing the sick with out the aid of medicines, (just by thinking it, etc etc...

Well a being wouldn't be God if he couldn't do those things.

Christians cannot and will not accept that this isn't possible, which is called a Genetic fallacy. The romans called it Delibero Nescius.

What? Do you actually know what a gentic fallacy is? It is the belief that an argument is wrong based on it's origins.

Yoy are not one to criticise anyone for logical fallacies considering that what you just pulled out the bag here is an argument of personal incredulity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...of_imagination

wikipedia

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.

2) It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

© source where applicable

As stated in my OP, The fact is that we don't have any of his personal writings, nor the personal writings of anyone that knew him (friends, family, neighbours, etc). We don't have an official record of birth, death, marriage, etc. We therefore find ourselves in a situation in which we have no direct evidence, rather indirect evidence via a myriad of sources. There are several source we can use to find evidence for a jesus, however none of these go to prove divinity, at best they attempt to prove a mortal jesus person lived. We can only accept this as the case due to the evidence we have at our disposal.

So what if we don't have "personal" writings of his. That doesn't matter, we don't have personal writings for a lot of historical people. In fact, it actually becomes more realiable because we have what OTHER people thought about him and also several other people. It has doesn't matter if we don't have birth or death cerificates. It's a bit puzzling and also ignorant of you to think we actually need these things.

As for the rest of it. Yoy obviously know nothing. Richard Bauckham's book, Jesus and the eye witnesses is a good example of a historian who had shown that the accounts is the Gospels are based on eye witness testimony. He was praised for this work also by many scholars in the field. However this is just an example and there is more.

Even Ed Sanders, a skeptic, as said there can be no doubt about the generalities of Jesus' life. He was a rabbi, a preacher, he was crucified, he taught sermons, etc, etc. The only claims that are disputed are the miracle claims. And even then this comes down to philosophy rather than history. Some people just don't beliveve these things are possible, but as I noted above this would seem to be an argument from incredulity. The Gospel accounts are very detailed in what happens.

Historian John Dickson has this to say

Not only is Jesus' non-existence never discussed in academic literature - the way Plato's non-existence is never debated - but most experts also agree that there are, to use Ed Sanders' words, "no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life".

and

Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. If a person mentioned in so many sources (both Christian and non-Christian) can turn out to be fictional, then we would have to start erasing countless other figures from the pages of the textbooks.

But subjective evidence should not be even called evidence, as there is no way of verifying it. Subjective evidence such as spiritual revelations, might appear to be a harder nut to crack until you consider that people have such "revelations" regardless of culture or era...and most of them have had nothing to do with Jesus. If a christian goes into a cave and meditates/prays for 10 days, he or she is going to claim to have had spiritual contact with Jesus. If a muslim does this, they will claim to have had spiritual contact with allah. If a buddhist does this, they will claim to have spiritual contact with....well, themselves, but you get the point. The only common thread here is that deep introspection causes most humans to have deeply spiritual experiences. To claim that one's own religion is the only one that can do this is to ignore the evidence. To claim that such an experience is proof of their respective deity is foolish. it is therefore infantile in the extreme to think a supernatural divine jesus ever existed.

The bit in bold and underlined is self refuting. All you have done is offered subjective evidence gainst my position. Take care now, bye, bye then.

But a man yes we can make that presumption. This is because we have evidence that men exist. but gods, angels, devils, demons, we have none.

What evidence are you using to say a man called Jesus existed? You threw it all away, remember?

Like I said already, There may have been a man called Chumpachomps who existed. Now I don't have any credible sources to back this up, but he may have existed.

[Darth Ovious]

Darth Ovious

Ah, the inevitable "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Erm no, to classify as a historian you would need to be knowledable about the historical method and you would also need to actually use it.

People who deny the existence of Jesus do not use such histyorical methods to do so, therefore they are not being historians when they do it.

My goodness, how much of an idiot can you be? Look let me quote you historian John Dickson on it and then you can see what is said.

Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. If a person mentioned in so many sources (both Christian and non-Christian) can turn out to be fictional, then we would have to start erasing countless other figures from the pages of the textbooks.

Hey, I thought about using that analogy too. See, scientists would say that the theory of evolution is not a fact, just like the existence of Jesus is not a fact. We cannot know what actually happened so long ago.

Wow, a skeptic who tries to put doubt on the theory of evolution.

I take it you don't have any complaints against YEC's then?

Only if you approach his posts assuming he is a Jesus myther.

No, we quoted him enough and you dismissed it. He said plenty of times in that first post of his that this and that didn't count as evidence for a historical Jesus.

There is that black-and-white thing again. Either Josephus is true, or is rejected out right. If the Gospels are accurate, or must be rejected out right.

The reality is that we do not know if Josephus wrote about Jesus is not, we can only estimate how likely it is (and naturally that estimate will be biased by our own viewpoint). The reality is that Gospels are going to be true is parts, and embellishment in other parts (seriously, the two nativities are so wildly different that one has to be an embellishment).

I do not know about bertatberts, but I think the Gospels, and the rise of Christianity itself, do give good evidence that Jesus existed. Most scholars seem to think there was a proto-Mark that described Jesus' works, and many believe in a sayings document, Q. I think these give good evidence that Jesus existed (but not enogh to call it fact).

bertatberts didn't just say that doubt was casted on these writings, he dismissed them outright. He even said in several instances in that first post of his "this is not evidence for a historical Jesus". There is your major difference that you are completely missing. When he talked about Tacitus, he didn't just say that there was doubt on it. He full out rejected it like thus:

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

I find that unlikely, because from the context, I think that is a made up name. If you had found a Hebrew name, then this might work better; such a person might have existed. But there would be rather less evidence than there is for Jesus.

This is the black-and-white thing again. You live in a world where things are either true or false, with no room for doubt (which is back to the hard rock of certainty). Real life is not like that. We do not know what happened 2000 years ago, we can only make educated guesses based on the available evidence. To me, that evidence points to a high likelihood that Jesus existed, but it does not prove it as fact.

Like I said, a guy named Chumpachomps may have existed in 1st century Palestine. The only way you could determine such a thing is if there was historical evidence for his existence. So if you dismiss it all out of hand as unrealiable, faked, forged, etc, then what other evidence would you be able to use to say that such a guy existed?

That was my point. You would be completely unaware if such a guy existed in the first place UNLESS there was a historical record to begin with.

Please, do not twist my words; I never said you think atheists are wrong about everything. It only makes you look dishonest, and I do not think that that is the case.

Well when you say what you said what else I amsupposed to think.

Of course you will not believe him. Somehow you have to rationalise him agreeing with me, and it is so much easier to assume an atheist is lying than to admit you got it wrong. There is that hard rock of certainty that I mentioned last time. Everything you see has to be filtered and distorted to fit your worldview, because changing your worldview is not possible.

The bit in bold is actually what I was talking about. You seem to be suggesting that I must think that atheists are wrong about everything because I must have this "hard rock of certainty", whatever that is.

It is only clear when you filter it though your perception. What you have done is assumed anything he said that suggests he not a Jesus myther is just him being dishonest. Then you can happily ignore all that evidence, and just look at the evidence that he is a Jesus myther. And then you can confirm your suspicion that he is a Jesus myther.

I can do the same to show you are Russian. Anything you say or do that might suggest otherwise, is clearly you dishonestly pretending not to be Russian, and so can be dismissed. Everything that remains naturally points to you being Russian. Only, of course, you are not Russian.

Well he gave the perception that he was a Jesus myther off pretty well in his first post by arguing against every single bit of evidence that shows that Jesus existed and by saying it wasn't evidence to show he existed. However, the fact remains. He used Jesus myther arguments, common to Jesus mythers. Our replies DO NOT CHANGE THE FACT that his arguments have been demolished and replied to. RG gave a detailed description to why those sources are realiable and how arguments against those sources arise from an ignorance of what the hostorical method actually entails. All that we are bickering over now is whether bertatberts said he was a Jesus myther or not, it doesn't change the fact that his original argument were replied to.

You could argue if I'm Russian if you want but you would need that little thing called evidence to back it up. Perhaps if you had something that said I was Russian or perhaps if I demonstrated things that Russians would be knowledgable in or something. However I'll tell you something, if I was to say in a thread that I was Russian and then later on in the same thread said that I was not Russian, then you would have some doubt on your hands to what my position actually was. Same here with bertatberts. He was was pretty much all over the place claiming several things at once in his first post.

Are you saying there is as much evidence for Chumpachomps as there is for Jesus? I think there is considerably more for Jesus. I think the evidence we have, unreliable though it may be, points to Jesus existing and Chumpachomps being a name you just made up.

I cannot be sure of both, but I can live with that uncertainty.

Well you see, the evidence for Jesus was already declared unrealiable by bertatberts and dismissed out of hand, so there is nothing there to say he existed because I can just say that the name Chumpachomps should be there instead of Jesus.

bertatberts said that Jospehus could actually be a complete forgery which was inserted by a Christian. Well I'm going to assert now that Christian interpolator actually overworte the name Jesus where Chumpachomps was actually originally written. So thus the text should read:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Chumpachomps. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders

It does not matter what the guy actually posted, you know he is a Jesus myther, and will just filter out anything he said to the contrary.

I get it.

I know what he said because he origianlly posted what he said dum dum. It's not that difficult to understand and everyone else here apart from you can see that.

There is that black-and-white thinking again. Either bertatberts accepts the existence of Jesus as true, or he thinks it is false. No room for doubt in DO's world!

That's because it is a position that cannot be doubted as per the historical method. Hence why John Dickson says this:

Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. If a person mentioned in so many sources (both Christian and non-Christian) can turn out to be fictional, then we would have to start erasing countless other figures from the pages of the textbooks.

He did that in the OP. Are you saying that he was moving the goalposts before anyone had replied to him?

Hmm, I guess I do need to learn about moving the goalposts; I thought that was something that happened during an argument.

You can do it within a post if you know roughly how your opponent is going to respond. At the very least he was being contradictory in his first post then. However he has been moving those goalposts all through this thread. His first post stated that there may have been a man called Jesus, he then went on to post the historical view and said that a man named Jesus had been effectively proven. SO you tell me? That sounds like moving the goalposts to me.

I meant RG is pretending to himself, that he is deluding himself. That delusion is part of why he misread the OP. Did you notice I said "No way are triffling things like evidence going to change his mind" That means I think in RG's mind bertatberts is a Jesus myther. Therefore RG is being sincere in what he says; he really does think is a Jesus myther, he is not trying to deliberately mislead anyone.

Once again, DO, you have misread what I said. I was certainly not as clear, I accept, but what we see here is a trend for you to assume an atheist means one thing, and to ignore what he actually wrote.

Lets see what you said again:

Of course my post is dismissed. There is that hard rock of certainty, and nothing but nothing will assail it. bertatberts has made his position clear, and still RG wants to pretend he meant something else. No way are triffling things like evidence going to change his mind.

What does the word pretend mean to you Pixie?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretend

–verb (used with object)
1. to cause or attempt to cause (what is not so) to seem so: to pretend illness; to pretend that nothing is wrong.
2. to appear falsely, as to deceive; feign: to pretend to go to sleep.
3. to make believe: The children pretended to be cowboys.
4. to presume; venture: I can't pretend to say what went wrong.
5. to allege or profess, especially insincerely or falsely: He pretended to have no knowledge of her whereabouts.

Because the word seems to include that you have the knowledge in the first place to know that are being decietful in presenting a claim that isn't true. It's not a misunderstanding like you are telling me. Perhaps you are now pretending because you know what you originally meant?

[rogue06]

Circular reasoning using a 183 year old biblical dictionary to prove your point when every other dictionary in the world contradicts it, makes it a moot point, sorry!

That wasn't a "biblical dictionary" that was quoted

From the Webster 2010 dictionary.

faith (fāt̸h)

noun

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence


Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hmm. It appears from the number 1 that this is the first definition for the word and that there are others. Why didn't you provide the other definitions bert? Why only provide one? Could it be that they might not have supported your contention? So you're left with cherry picking definitions that agree with your assertions but ignoring any that don't. Would you consider that honest?

And from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary.

: firm belief in something for which there is no proof(

Yup you're definitely cherry picking. This time you skipped a couple of definitions and went to the only one you wanted. Again, do you consider that honest?

Here is what Merriams-Webster online dictionary actually says:

Merriams-Webster online dictionary

Definitions of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

Source

© source where applicable

I think this nicely exposes the level of scholarship behind your assertions - carefully picked over excluding any and everything that doesn't support your preconclusions.

[bertatberts]

As you know it is my contention that a biblical jesus is impossible, and an historical person named jesus is possible, this is also the consensus of most non-religious historians in that there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived, but that he was probably not the same Jesus as described in the Gospels. In other words, the Jesus of the Gospels may have been based on a real Jesus, but most likely the historical Jesus was not the legendary Jesus of the Gospels.
That conclusion was also made by the famous "Jesus Seminar" which consists of a majority of Bible scholars and historians from around the world. In spite of this objective historical view of Jesus, most Christians have no knowledge of its existence. In fact, this historical view of Jesus is not even acknowledged by the Christian community, and is never even addressed or dealt with in Evangelistic books and literature, oddly enough!

You can find more on the Jesus Seminar’s research and findings at: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html and also at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm
Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The Jesus Seminar is composed of Protestants, Catholics, and atheists, professors at universities and seminaries, one pastor, three members of the Westar Institute in California which sponsored the project, one film-maker, and three others whose current occupations are entirely unidentified.
there are some well known names Marvin Meyer of Chapman University and Karen King of Occidental College).
Bruce Chilton (of Bard College, New York) and Ramsey Michaels (of Southwest Missouri State).
John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University and Marcus Borg of Oregon State).
so if you think my argument against a biblical jesus is odd it seems I'm in good company, of which the majority are themselves theist scholars.

[37818]

That is not the primary definition of faith. And that is a more recent pejorative definition of religious faith.

Noah Webster’s Dictionary 1828

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.

Circular reasoning using a 183 year old biblical dictionary to prove your point when every other dictionary in the world contradicts it, makes it a moot point, sorry!

You are being rash here. For one, that quote does not say :"without evidence" but "without other evidence." And the fact is ALL of your OP is based on this very type of faith. Neither you nor I, for that matter, have any first hand knowledge of any of it. We are arguing over "other" hand knowledge/evidence, involving this very type of faith you want to object to.

"Belief, the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. "

[MaxVel]

Hi Bert -

Looking over this post, it clarifies a number of things which were unclear in your OP...

As you know it is my contention that a biblical jesus is impossible, and an historical person named jesus is possible, this is also the consensus of most non-religious historians in that there was a historical Jesus Christ who lived, but that he was probably not the same Jesus as described in the Gospels. In other words, the Jesus of the Gospels may have been based on a real Jesus, but most likely the historical Jesus was not the legendary Jesus of the Gospels.

It's possible that Jesus was no more than a normal person, not a divine figure. I think that it's been well enough established historically that there was someone called Jesus at that time and in that place. Those who argue that Jesus (of either kind) never existed are going against the majority opinion of secular and Christian historians, and against standard historical method.

Note that pointing out that secular historians don't believe in a divine Jesus is stating the obvious, and adds nothing to an argument. If they believed He was God they wouldn't be 'non-religious', would they?

That conclusion was also made by the famous "Jesus Seminar" which consists of a majority of Bible scholars and historians from around the world.

Wrong. According to the Wikipedia link you provided, the Jesus Seminar has only some 150 members. 150 is far from being "a majority of Bible scholars".

Perhaps what you meant was that the majority of the Jesus Seminar's members are Bible scholars and historians?

{Yes, I'm being picky, but I hope you can see that it's important to be clear and careful in what you say to avoid misunderstandings.}

In spite of this objective historical view of Jesus, most Christians have no knowledge of its existence.

It's (very) debatable whether their view is objective... Here you're effectively saying (without argument) that 'This view is the correct one, see, it's objective (or so they tell me)'

In fact, this historical view of Jesus is not even acknowledged by the Christian community, and is never even addressed or dealt with in Evangelistic books and literature, oddly enough!

Ummm... No. Read the whole Wikipedia article that you cited. There's a section headed 'Criticism' that mentions Craig Blomberg, NT Wright, WL Craig, Greg Boyd, Darrell Bock and more.

Claiming what you did is just sloppy and makes you look like you're pushing an agenda rather than interested in an objective (there's that word again!) analysis.

You can find more on the Jesus Seminar’s research and findings at: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html and also at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm
Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The Jesus Seminar is composed of Protestants, Catholics, and atheists, professors at universities and seminaries, one pastor, three members of the Westar Institute in California which sponsored the project, one film-maker, and three others whose current occupations are entirely unidentified.
there are some well known names Marvin Meyer of Chapman University and Karen King of Occidental College).
Bruce Chilton (of Bard College, New York) and Ramsey Michaels (of Southwest Missouri State).
John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University and Marcus Borg of Oregon State).
so if you think my argument against a biblical jesus is odd it seems I'm in good company, of which the majority are themselves theist scholars.

Yes, there's a bunch of people, some of whom are even qualified in the general area, who take the position that you do. So what?

(See, it's quite fun using rhetorical flourishes instead of argument and evidence... )

Bottom line: are their arguments correct? Does what they say best explain the data we have? What do their opponents say? How effective are their criticisms of the Jesus Seminar?

[Tassman]

Hi Bert -

Looking over this post, it clarifies a number of things which were unclear in your OP...



It's possible that Jesus was no more than a normal person, not a divine figure. I think that it's been well enough established historically that there was someone called Jesus at that time and in that place. Those who argue that Jesus (of either kind) never existed are going against the majority opinion of secular and Christian historians, and against standard historical method.

Agreed!

Note that pointing out that secular historians don't believe in a divine Jesus is stating the obvious, and adds nothing to an argument. If they believed He was God they wouldn't be 'non-religious', would they?

The point at issue surely is not a “divine Jesus” so much as the type of Jesus that the original Christians believed in. There are numerous forms of early Christianity and the Christology of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical NT scriptures is but one form of it. There has long been scholarly disputation on this point among secular historians, e.g. Ehrman. But not among the apologist historians naturally, who are committed to promulgating the notion of god’s revealed word in scripture.

Wrong. According to the Wikipedia link you provided, the Jesus Seminar has only some 150 members. 150 is far from being "a majority of Bible scholars".

Perhaps what you meant was that the majority of the Jesus Seminar's members are Bible scholars and historians?

{Yes, I'm being picky, but I hope you can see that it's important to be clear and careful in what you say to avoid misunderstandings.}

There are hundreds of biblical scholars, but only a relatively small number who promote the bible as the inerrant word of god.

It's (very) debatable whether their view is objective... Here you're effectively saying (without argument) that 'This view is the correct one, see, it's objective (or so they tell me)'

Debatable by whom?

Ummm... No. Read the whole Wikipedia article that you cited. There's a section headed 'Criticism' that mentions Craig Blomberg, NT Wright, WL Craig, Greg Boyd, Darrell Bock and more.

Yes there are more, but not all that many more. These are the very names which in part comprise the evangelical, apologetically motivated authors, who tend to place historical-critical methodology second to the goal of buttressing the faith. They are motivated by a fear that the rather closed community of evangelical Christians will be led astray by so-called radical/liberal scholars such as those to be found in the dreaded Jesus Seminar.

Thus we have the modern equivalent of the patristic heresiologists who consist of a minority group of scholars usually inhabiting fundamentalist inclined evangelical churches or seminaries. They comprise the likes of Ben Witherington, Timothy Paul Jones, Darrell Bock, and Komoszewski. As well one will find the likes of Philip Jenkins Stanley Porter and the garrulous Bishop N.T. Wright.

They function as a mutual admiration society, contributing testimonials to one another's books (which are usually published by conservative presses like Inter Varsity Christian Press) and generally address their concerns to insiders, i.e. a closed group of believers who need little convincing that the radical/liberal scholars are to be disregarded as irrelevant, mischievous or worse – agents of Satan leading the faithful astray.

Claiming what you did is just sloppy and makes you look like you're pushing an agenda rather than interested in an objective (there's that word again!) analysis.

Typical theist argument by condescension! Um – and MaxVel is NOT pushing an agenda?

Yes, there's a bunch of people, some of whom are even qualified in the general area, who take the position that you do. So what?

(See, it's quite fun using rhetorical flourishes instead of argument and evidence... )

Well I shall bounce back your own "rhetorical flourishes": Yes, there's a bunch of people, just a handful admittedly, some of whom are even qualified in the general area, who take the conservative apologetic position that you do. See above for names!

Bottom line: are their arguments correct? Does what they say best explain the data we have? What do their opponents say? How effective are their criticisms of the Jesus Seminar?

I trust that you are not referring to WL Craig’s preposterous claim that the bodily resurrection best explains the empty tomb? It doesn’t! ANY natural explanation for such an occurrence is more probable than a miracle

[bertatberts]

You are being rash here. For one, that quote does not say :"without evidence" but "without other evidence." And the fact is ALL of your OP is based on this very type of faith. Neither you nor I, for that matter, have any first hand knowledge of any of it. We are arguing over "other" hand knowledge/evidence,

But I'm sorry I'm not using faith I'm going by the evidence and the lack of any real evidence, which is still evidence, bringing it to a preponderance of evidence against a biblical divine jesus.
Name one other instant that someone actually broke the laws of physics rose from the dead, or brought a dead person to life via magic, or changed one food into another, all via magic. etc. etc.

involving this very type of faith you want to object to.
"Belief, the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgement that what another states or testifies is the truth. "

There is a huge difference however, I don't really have beliefs, the only faith I may have, is in the abilities of my family friends and peers and that is based on the objective knowledge, I've personally gained over time from them and for testing and experimentation. If I were to believe in anything it would be humanity, however that is a little redundant as I human. But what I actually do is despair for humanity, it's gullibility, that along with it's greed will eventually wipe us all out. I see it everyday in my work. A bit of topic but and from a theist Ghandi once said "The world has enough for everybody's need but not enough for everybody's greed".
However it seems, I can take it that you have other objective evidence. To verify faith as not being blind, I would like to see it.

Hi Bert -
Bottom line: are their arguments correct? Does what they say best explain the data we have? What do their opponents say? How effective are their criticisms of the Jesus Seminar?

I think Tassman has done an excellent job on replying to you.
The Jesus seminar is a group of person from different christian denominations and some secular persons for clarity, what they have decided is clear, but whether you accept it is you prerogative.
So I can take by your tirade that you don't rate there decision. Well very enough.
Your not the first to go against the decision of his peers, there wouldn't be 38.000 denominations if you were.

[rogue06]

Hey bert, do you think cherry picking definitions for faith was good scholarship and honest? Or is it typical for your "research"?

[moreta]

No, just sad. Especially sad that anyone would think they are "good" or "funny".

Really! Is that all you can come up with.
Take a leave out of Rational Gaze, and Darth Ovious book, at least their insults were laced with venom.
Mind you, I suppose you don't wish to venture as far off your christian path as they do.

Take a pill, dude. It wasn't an insult. It wasn't even an attempt at an insult. It was an observation.

[roger_pearse]

A lot written nothing said.

An unfortunate introduction to a post that consists of pasting, without thought, some rather ignorant and ill-considered remarks off the web.

Likewise it is unclear precisely what this is intended to show: the actual *argument* is not made, but insinuated.

This appears, however, to be a headbanger argument, that Jesus never existed. No professor ancient history at any university in the world, whatever their religion, holds that view. So I think we can say with safety that it is a malicious claim, made for polemical effect rather than out of historical interest.

But let's press on and apply our critical faculties to what is pasted here.

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus,

By whom? If we are discussing the historical record, and evidence that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed, we would hardly start with this.

yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),

The text says "He was the Christ". It does not use the word "Messiah". What other "clearly Christian phrases" we are supposed to worry about are not stated.

Nor do I know -- and nor does this say -- just where Josephus is supposed to "refuse to call anyone messiah".

* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,

It does, although the Greek text is very consistent indeed. But quite why this is a problem is not stated.

* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

Origen did not "review" Josephus. He quotes him on specific points, responding to Celsus. Indeed, if we want to play the speculation game, we might notice that Celsus accused Jesus of being a magician -- a capital crime. The TF would hardly be a convenient witness, considering it refers to Jesus' miracles.

However ... the statement that Origen says that Josephus does NOT call him the messiah is true. This, therefore, suggests that the TF is damaged. The short passage calls Jesus "the so-called Christ", and the Latin in Jerome, De viris illustribus, says "he was believed to be the Christ". We could hypothesise, based on Origen, that originally the TF said something like this in this sentence, and a word was lost in transmission.

* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

These two statements are false. The TF is quoted by Eusebius in two of his works. These works exist in late medieval manuscripts, as does Josephus. There is no trace of a copy of Josephus that did not contain the TF.

* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

No scholar agrees. Only one scholar ever held this view, Emil Schurer.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

This is a headbanger site. Why not use scholarly sites instead?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

This is a personal view.

The TF does have problems. I think all of us can "feel" that something is wrong with it. A century ago, scholars were united in believing it an interpolation. But it is clear from the second passage that Josephus wrote more than once about Jesus. And today scholars generally feel the passage is genuine but corrupt.

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)

No evidence for forgery has been produced.

Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, go figure.
Else you would not have posted it.

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for logic and evidence. And everything we have seen so far consists, not of evidence for the author's position, but of excuses to ignore evidence. No position that adopts that approach can be correct.

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war)

Note the insinuation that only contemporary sources count. In reality Tacitus is the prime source used for the reign of Tiberius by every academic writer.

Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" -

No scholar doubts that he wrote this passage.

this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

If we knew more about Roman titulature, we could be certain this was so. But it is worth considering whether Tacitus would have cared about using an obsolete title.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

It is always nice to hear such certainty about what non-existent records "must" contain, combined with such ignorance of the facts. Every Roman source calls him Christ. That's why they called his followers Christians. Even in court cases, sending them to be eaten in the arena.

* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)

This is a very strange argument. Tacitus thinks Christianity is false. He says it arose recently, as it did. No doubt he thought that made it untrue. The Roman hostility to novelty is true enough -- it is documented by Tertullian. But ... why is this a "problem" with the Tacitus passage?

* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

Which early Christians "actively sought such passages"? (This is actually a bit of atheist hearsay that floats around)

No-one refers to most of ancient literature for a millennium, as far as we know. Again, this shows ignorance of the transmission of texts.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records - but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

No evidence on sources for Tacitus has been offered, so this is speculation, as an excuse to ignore evidence. Again.

So this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

Note the dodge. We have an impeccable source, our main source for all of the reign of Tiberius, when Jesus lived and .... we have an excuse invented, based purely on speculation, as a 'reason' to ignore it.

This is the point at which we have to face a fact. We aren't dealing with reasoned argument. We're dealing with religious-based hate.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php

Sounds like a reliable source ... NOT.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

I rather doubt the author of that site would endorse what you have written.

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

Erm, Pliny knows about the Christ chappie, and that he was a man. Sounds like a reference to me!

So Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

I don't see why.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html

How does this help your argument?

there is nothing in your post that suggest a biblical person called jesus existed. Sorry.
It is all just special pleading.

Special pleading is a good term. It's what happens when people with an agenda find excuses to ignore things they find inconvenient.

If you have to believe nonsense like this to be an atheist, sign me up as a follower of that Camping chap now -- it would require less credulity. While atheists use arguments for obscurantism like this, we have to infer that atheism does not constitute an intellectual position, but merely an expression of malice.

Try again. And why not think for yourself, rather than pasting uncritically badly thought out rubbish like this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[bertatberts]

This appears, however, to be a headbanger argument, that Jesus never existed. No professor ancient history at any university in the world, whatever their religion, holds that view. So I think we can say with safety that it is a malicious claim, made for polemical effect rather than out of historical interest.

I suggest you take another look firstly at the OP, as I state three times that I'm not disputing that a jesus could have existed, but a biblical divine jesus is impossible. And I suggest you read through the thread before jumping in.
In future too.
Yet another christian that hasn't been following the thread and pipes in with the same inane nonsense that's been presented and refuted. Yet another example of a strawman.

Try again. And why not think for yourself, rather than pasting uncritically badly thought out rubbish like this?

Well it's not pasted from the net it has been researched and written by me. it links to sites that verify my research