There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Vansmack51]

Rational Gaze
Bart Ehrman does not believe in angels or the virgin birth so he certainly does NOT believe that the Jesus of the Gospels really existed. He believes that the stories are fictional but based on a real person as the NRSV Study Bible clearly says that they are. Both of them are correct on the first part and incorrect on the latter. One of the funniest things I've ever heard is Bart Ehrman trying to make the case for a historical Jesus on the Infidel Guy's radio show. He made the same appeals to authority you quoted but when pressed could not come up with any evidence for a historical Jesus. The critic on the show, I forget who it was, then had Ehrman for lunch. It was truly hilarious. Google it.

[lilpixieofterror]

[FONT=Arial]Lilpixieofterror what grade is that term paper for?

It's called college level my dear, something you wouldn't know anything about.

It’s not a history term paper I guess. I was quoting the Reverend Robert Taylor(1784–1844), not RobertTaylor the actor.

Perhaps you should be sure to note that before you rant, but Robert Taylor lived over 150 years ago and even then, what does soundbites prove? That you can brouse web sites and find quotes of people? That's nice and all and it's too bad I can do it too. Now, do you have an actual argument here or just rants and taunts?

Your character attacks on Mr. Paine and myself will not make what we’ve said about your religion untrue.

Thomas Paine is a fool, like yourself that knew nothing about what he speaks. His 'arguments' have been answered for centuries and even browsing the literature and commentaries that were available to him at the time would have answered many of his arguments and questions. The problem is that Thomas Paine was not looking for answers, but rants. In many ways, he is the 18th century version of a fundy atheist. Arrogant and self centered, but thinks he knows more then he really does, but enough people take him seriously for his rants to live on. Goes to show, stupid people will believe anything written by other stupid people that tell them things they like to hear.

Why so angry? Is it because soon after you became emotionally involved with your religion you realized it was circling the drain and taking you down with it? It is you know. There’s still time to jump ship and join up with the good guys.

I love it when people simply make up emotions about those they disagree with because they couldn't answer what they were told. Sorry child, but you have not brought forth anything that hasn't already been answered and refuted for centuries. Don't worry though, there's still time to dump the fundy mentality and actually try to educate yourself.

“I certainly had no idea how little faith Christians have in their own faith till I saw how ill their courage and temper can stand any attack on it.” – Harriet Martineau

I love soundbites and by a social theorist that died before my great great grandmother was born. Perhaps next you'll actually dig into the works of scholars that write complicated books you can't understand and try to refute them? Sorry child, but soundbites and taunts are not argument (despite you wanting them to be them).

Twebber, I think there is a very big difference between accepting something as being true because the majority of the people in your partcular culture do and actually being convinced of something. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was not a historical person after after a critical study of the matter. Most people who have studied this subject are Christians and so they accept his existence on faith already.

Many scholars as in those who couldn't get published by good and reputable publishers so they had to start their own publishing company to get their works published. Yep, that's sure a good source of information for me. In truth, even most skeptical scholars accept that Jesus was a real historical person and only crack pots and nut cases say that Jesus wasn't a historical person. Perhaps you'll name just 5 scholars that agree with your position and nope, Thomas Paine isn't a scholar, he is just like Earl Dorthy, they both print off ramblings that a few people read and take seriously beyond a few of their dedicated followers. Perhaps you can cite a reputable source next by a real scholar that somebody takes seriously or didn't die

The prologue to the Gospel of Luke does indeed sound to me a lot like fiction. Who is this person the author was writing to? Now as far as your challenge for me to produce the tests for fiction I was referring to the test is this: Produce a historcial narrrative that is in large part dialog, recorded word for word conversations of people all speaking in complete sentences. And for extra credit produce a few historical narratives that contain conversations between people and invisible beings and tales of the supernatural. Or are those kind of “historical” narratives only “historical” if they appear in the holy book of your particular religion? My experience on these blogs tells me you will likely attempt to sidestep my challenge and will not produce any narratives froim antiquity that could support your arguments.

I see that the fundy atheist is too stupid to actually read things in depth and ask all sorts of stupid questions and gives all sorts of stupid argument that show he doesn't understand what he's talking about, time to expose his ignorance before all:

1. How does it 'sound a lot like fiction'? Did you just make that up right now? Prove it.
2. Real scholars (IE people you don't read) believe that either Luke was writing to a person or writing to the church in general. Nobody is quite sure, but even then, how does that prove it must be fiction? Is that something you just made up, right now because you can't deal with arguments?
3. Again, real scholarship comes to our rescue and tells us that the ancient people had good memories and were able to memorize key phrases of a speech and that other historical narratives of that time follow the same guidelines as well. AKA idiot, Jesus' words were often paraphrased and the key points were the parts memorized, not the entire thing.
4. You simply show your biasness against the supernatural and let your pre-conceived notions
5. As CG pointed out, it is amazing that fundy atheist like you believe that a new form of fiction was invented in the 1st century, disappeared mysteriously without a trace and magically appeared centuries later. Yet we are lead to believe that it is Christians that believe in the impossible.
6. Your final challenge to produce narratives from antiquity is easy, here is Tacitus Annals, book 11 to prove you wrong:

Moved by these considerations Vologeses called a council, placed Tiridates by his side, and began to speak as follows: "This man before you, born from the same father as myself, having waived in my favour, on the ground of age, the highest title of all, was established by me in the possession of Armenia, which is accounted the third grade of power. As for Media, Pacorus was already in possession of it. And I thought to myself that I had duly arranged our family and home so as to guard against the old feuds and rivalries of brothers. The Romans thwart me, and though they have never with success to themselves disturbed the peace between us, they are now again breaking it to their own destruction. I will not attempt to deny one thing. It was by just dealing rather than by bloodshed, by having a good cause rather than by arms, that I had wished to retain what my ancestors had won. If I have sinned through irresolution, my valour shall make amends for it. Assuredly your strength and renown are at their height, and you have in addition the repute of obedience, which the greatest of mortals must not despise, and which the gods highly esteem."
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

So I guess using your insane logic, Tacitus is simply fiction too? Thanks for showing us all how big of a moron you really are because after all, "DUH! Tacitus records large parts of dialog, word for word therefore it is fiction!" is how your argument will work here too. Have fun arguing with how the majority of historians are also deluded as well.

That was fun, but it looks as though real research trumps your fundy atheism yet again. Have fun digging your way out.

You asked: “If the Jesus stories are fictive why do the overwhelming majority of scholars affirm the historicity of Jesus?”

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have been Christians. I’m not aware of any cases in which non-Christian Bible scholars have converted to Christianity aftr a critical study of the Bible. However I am aware of quite a few scholars who started out as Christians and after a critical study of the Bible rejected their faith. How do you explain that may I ask? Bart Ehrman is just one of many before him.

And many have started out as fundy Christians and ended up with a better and stronger faith, how do you explain them? See, we can play this game all day but Christianity is full of those who were non-Christians and upon studying Christianity become Christians. CS Lewis, Timothy Paul Jones, GK Chesterton, and myself are just a small number of examples that can counter your argument here. Sorry, you got to try harder than this.

The reason people denied Jesus came in the flesh is because the first Christians believed that the crucifixion and resurrection were events that took place in heaven. The existence of Jesus in and of itself was not miraculous? What do you call a virgin birth announced by angels? I’d call it a good reason why I’ve never believed such a person ever existed. Neither one of us believes that there was a Jesus who was not born to a virgin or whose birth and resurrection was not announced by angels now do we? So it is disingenuous for you to suggest that such a Jesus may have existed.

This again, is just speculation and nonsense that I doubt he can prove at all. No, the first Christians believed that Jesus was a physical person and died a physical death. If you think this is false, go ahead and prove it because the Gnostics are one such group that would agree with you here, but it's too bad that their group didn't really come about until the second century and their writings came about later. I will love to watch you prove any of this.

Evil Overlord, Homer predates the Bible.

And that proves... (this is where you insert an argument)...

Looks like we got another arrogant fundy atheist on our hands that thinks he's smarter then he really is. Guess it's time to carve him up like a roast turkey.

[lilpixieofterror]

Rational Gaze
Bart Ehrman does not believe in angels or the virgin birth so he certainly does NOT believe that the Jesus of the Gospels really existed. He believes that the stories are fictional but based on a real person as the NRSV Study Bible clearly says that they are. Both of them are correct on the first part and incorrect on the latter. One of the funniest things I've ever heard is Bart Ehrman trying to make the case for a historical Jesus on the Infidel Guy's radio show. He made the same appeals to authority you quoted but when pressed could not come up with any evidence for a historical Jesus. The critic on the show, I forget who it was, then had Ehrman for lunch. It was truly hilarious. Google it.

I guess the fundy atheist doesn't think that people haven't gone about and refuted his hero. Timothy Paul Jones, NT Wright, and Ben Witherington are Christians scholars that have taken the time to refute his nonsense. Go ahead though, present forward your arguments because I have read many of Bart Ehrman's works and found his works as total nonsense or outright false. Go ahead though, present an argument instead of taunts.

[Rational Gaze]

Bart Ehrman does not believe in angels or the virgin birth so he certainly does NOT believe that the Jesus of the Gospels really existed. He believes that the stories are fictional but based on a real person as the NRSV Study Bible clearly says that they are. Both of them are correct on the first part and incorrect on the latter. One of the funniest things I've ever heard is Bart Ehrman trying to make the case for a historical Jesus on the Infidel Guy's radio show. He made the same appeals to authority you quoted but when pressed could not come up with any evidence for a historical Jesus. The critic on the show, I forget who it was, then had Ehrman for lunch. It was truly hilarious. Google it.

In other words, you are a moron. I'm glad we've cleared that up!

[Challenger Grim]

demotivational-posters-troll-science.jpg

[Juice]

Lilpixieofterror what grade is that term paper for? It’s not a history term paper I guess. I was quoting the Reverend Robert Taylor(1784–1844), not RobertTaylor the actor.

Taylor’s reasoning was mistaken as I pointed out.

Your character attacks on Mr. Paine and myself will not make what we’ve said about your religion untrue.

Not only is Paine seriously outdated but appealing to him as an authority on the historical roots of Christianity is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Hence the pointed response from Lilpixieofterror.

Twebber, I think there is a very big difference between accepting something as being true because the majority of the people in your partcular culture do and actually being convinced of something.

You are not paying attention. I didn’t argue from a fallacious appeal to popularity.

Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was not a historical person after after a critical study of the matter.

Name one credible scholar that seriously argues for a non-historical Jesus.

Most people who have studied this subject are Christians and so they accept his existence on faith already.

Except for the atheists and critics that accept Jesus' historicity.

For example, atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." - (The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.). If according to Ludemann Jesus’ crucifixion is indisputable then his existence is no less indisputable.

The prologue to the Gospel of Luke does indeed sound to me a lot like fiction.

How convenient for you.

Who is this person the author was writing to?

Theophilus, not that that is relevant.

Now as far as your challenge for me to produce the tests for fiction I was referring to the test is this: Produce a historcial narrrative that is in large part dialog, recorded word for word conversations of people all speaking in complete sentences.

In addition to the one given by Lilpixieofterror Here are some more for you to chew on…

”We are told that, as he was crossing the Alps and passing by a barbarian village which had very few inhabitants and was a sorry sight, his companions asked with mirth and laughter, "Can it be that here too there are ambitious strifes for office, struggles for primacy, and mutual jealousies of powerful men?" 4 Whereupon Caesar said to them in all seriousness, "I would rather be first here than second at Rome." 5 In like manner we are told again that, in Spain, when he was at leisure and was reading from the history of Alexander, he was lost in thought for a long time, and then burst into tears. 6 His friends were astonished, and asked the reason for his tears. "Do you not think," said he, "it is matter for sorrow that while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet achieved no brilliant success?"– Plutarch (Parallel Lives - Julius Caesar)

and

”Of the other senators, only a very few used to go with Caesar to the senate; the rest, in displeasure, stayed away. 14 Considius, a very aged senator, once told Caesar that his colleagues did not come together because they were afraid of the armed soldiers. "Why, then," said Caesar, "dost thou too not stay at home out of the same fear?" 15 To this Considius replied: "Because my old age makes me fearless; for the short span of life that is still left me does not require much anxious thought."– Plutarch (Parallel Lives - Julius Caesar)

Do we really need to cite more? I mean seriously, dude, just read some yourself.

Using smackedbyavan51times’ reasoning the accounts of Julius Caesar must be fiction too because they contain dialogue of people speaking in complete sentences.

And for extra credit produce a few historical narratives that contain conversations between people and invisible beings and tales of the supernatural.

Tacitus speaks about omens and the supernatural in his Histories 2:78 for example.

Another example is Plutarch…

”[A]mong events of divine ordering, there was the great comet, which showed itself in great splendour for seven nights after [Julius] Caesar's murder, and then disappeared; also, the obscuration of the sun's rays. 5 For during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance, while the heat that came down from it was slight and ineffectual, so that the air in its circulation was dark and heavy owing to the feebleness of the warmth that penetrated it, and the fruits, imperfect and half ripe, withered away and shrivelled up on account of the coldness of the atmosphere. But more than anything else the phantom that appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods; and it was on this wise. “– Plutarch (Parallel Lives - Julius Caesar)

Or are those kind of “historical” narratives only “historical” if they appear in the holy book of your particular religion? My experience on these blogs tells me you will likely attempt to sidestep my challenge and will not produce any narratives froim antiquity that could support your arguments.

Consider your challenge accepted and met.

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have been Christians. I’m not aware of any cases in which non-Christian Bible scholars have converted to Christianity aftr a critical study of the Bible. However I am aware of quite a few scholars who started out as Christians and after a critical study of the Bible rejected their faith. How do you explain that may I ask? Bart Ehrman is just one of many before him.

As already pointed out by others such as Rational Gaze Ehrman is at least smart enough to not be a Jesus-myther.

The reason people denied Jesus came in the flesh is because the first Christians believed that the crucifixion and resurrection were events that took place in heaven.

The earliest records we have are Paul’s letters and he refers to the crucifixion/resurrection as physical events (Romans 1:1-4, 1 Cor 2:2, 15:3-5, Gal 3:1).

The existence of Jesus in and of itself was not miraculous?

Correct.

What do you call a virgin birth announced by angels?

That would bring us to a debate over Jesus’ divinity, not his existence as a person.

Neither one of us believes that there was a Jesus who was not born to a virgin or whose birth and resurrection was not announced by angels now do we? So it is disingenuous for you to suggest that such a Jesus may have existed.

Even heard of the quest for the historical Jesus?

[Juice]

In other words, you are a moron. I'm glad we've cleared that up!

PHEW! I thought it was just me that thought Jesus-mythers were as sharp as marbles.

[Hamster]

Rational Gaze
The critic on the show, I forget who it was, then had Ehrman for lunch. It was truly hilarious. Google it.

Hahaha, are you serious? Inifdel Guy is surprised that Ehrman hasn't heard of Robert Price



You clearly have a very different definition of lunch

[Tassman]

You don't even have an argument. Just a loose collection of worse randomly ordered in a way that makes no coherent, logical sense.


No, I understand the concepts just fine. You, on the other hand, have about twenty different meanings of the words "naturalism" and "true" it seems, judging from the song and dance you keep spinning in lieu of answering the questions presented to you.

RG: "So, Tassman, what do you mean by "naturalism?"
Tassman: <Vaguely-worded cryptic half-sentence>
RG: "Do you consider naturalism true?"
Tassman: <More vapid, supercilious nonsense, devoid of any meaning whatsoever.>

What I have deliberately and consistently refused to respond to is your initial question and frequent repeats: “Do you believe in naturalism”? It is a loaded question designed to serve your agenda in that you are objectifying “naturalism” as an absolute concept. This is not my position - although one recognizes it provides you with a nice straw-man, which presumably is what you are on about.

I do believe that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes – as studied by the natural sciences, including all concepts related to consciousness or the alleged supernatural. Because, there is NO verified evidence to suggest otherwise!

Nevertheless, there is NO deductive argument to establish the principle of uniformity, i.e. that the future will resemble the past or the so-called natural laws. Science operates mostly on inductive reasoning i.e. moving from the specific to the general and forms conclusions about the nature of the universe from a limited set of observations.

An obvious example is that we observe the fact that, so far, the sun always rises each day in the east. Therefore we can infer that the sun always rises each day in the east and the observations may be true - but because they are limited the conclusion may still be false - at least in principle.

This is why science always refers to “theories”, not “proofs”, and this is why I refuse to accept your terminology referring to naturalism is an absolute concept, i.e. "Do you believe in naturalism"/ Is naturalism true etc. It is not in an absolute sense.

Thus, physicists may not be able to prove that the sun must rise tomorrow, but they can infer from observation and induction that it is overwhelmingly probable that the sun will rise tomorrow and can even predict when and where.

So, Uh-huh. I guess that is why, earlier, you said:


Seems as if you been caught with your pants down, twice now. So, again, the question you are so terrified of answering: Do you believe the proposition (1) Naturalism is true, or do you believe the proposition (2) Naturalism is false. Denial of one logically implies acceptance of the other. So, which is it going to be? Enquiring minds wish to know. You and I both know you have not answered this question at all, and that you are doing all you can to avoid answering, as fear it will expose you for the intellectual cripple that you really are. That's not too difficult, is it? Typing out: "I believe proposition <1 or 2>" on the computer and hitting reply?

Something tells me I am going to be waiting for a very long time though.


More anti-realism. Are you sure you're not a solipsist?


More verificationism/scientism. And yet you claim:


Indeed, one might want to enquire just what exactly are you inferring? Since it seems you have no idea yourself. If you are not inferring naturalism, then this whole statement is moot, and your "argument" collapses like a deck of cards.


No, it shows that you are a moron who doesn't know anything about science, philosophy of science, or how they work, and did not understand a single word of what you read.

None of this addresses a single sentence of what I have wrote. More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.


And yet you claim:


Your inconsistency has been exposed, and you are doing all you can to wiggle your slimy way out of it, rather than man up and admit you were wrong.


More psychological projection. The sine qua non of fundamentalist atheism. "It is always the theists who are wrong, it couldn't possible be ME."


you are admitting here that you are too stupid to know what the 'word' confirmed means. Not that that surprises me. Given that you have twenty different definitions of the words "naturalism" and "true."

Stop dodging, Again:

What do you mean by “confirmed” in your assertion “Science has confirmed multiple arguments of Natural Theology”? Do you mean "proved"?

And while we’re at it, let’s follow your model and get a few simple questions out of the way:

Do you believe in naturalism yes or no! Why?

Do you believe in supernaturalism yes or no! Why?

Do you believe that philosophy can provide verified absolute conclusions, e.g. god’s existence, yes or no! Why?

[Tassman]

Hey Spazzman, are done ranting yet?

You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat.

I’d still like to know how you arrive at the position of declaring that “For all practical purposes naturalism is proven and true” when you are “NOT inferring that naturalism is true.”

We are all waiting.

Now stop dodging...

Scent blood, do you?

Your ignorance of science and its methodology is disgraceful. Were you home schooled? Now enough sitting on the sidelines like the dumb side-kick in a western, trying to win approval from the big boys with your “me too”, “me too” and get back to the bible which is all you seem capable of understanding. No wonder you’re a Christian.

BTW: I AM inferring that naturalism is true, because induction is moving from a generalized observation to a particular conclusion. What I am NOT doing is proving via deduction that it IS true, i.e. we are talking probabilities, NOT proven facts – you really haven’t got a clue, have you?

Oh, and see #564 to RG, who at least has a few clues about scientific methodology, for the answer to your grand-standing - although it will be over your head given you seem only able to comprehend the most simplistic concepts.

[Juice]

I am NOT inferring that naturalism is true.

For all practical purposes naturalism is proven and true

Is naturalism true etc[?] It is not in an absolute sense.

I AM inferring that naturalism is true

True, not true, true...

She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me...

Need I say more?

[Queue Spazzman’s whining about Juice being dishonest and taking him out of context…]

[Tassman]

True, not true, true...

She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me...

Need I say more?

[Queue Spazzman’s whining about Juice being dishonest and taking him out of context…]

Give it a rest, All-Juiced-Up. You clearly don’t have a clue.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, O.K., it's Juice who doesn't have a clue.

[lilpixieofterror]

Give it a rest, All-Juiced-Up. You clearly don’t have a clue.

I think everybody is forgetting how Tazzy Wazzy's logic works:

1. This person is a Christian.
2. Christians are deluded.
3. Therefore, anything they say is wrong.

So even when a Christian shows Tazzy Wazzy directly contradicting himself, it is the Christian that is deluded, but not Tazzy. When you learn that, you learn how the world of Tazzy Wazzy works! See, isn't his logic obvious?

[Juice]

Give it a rest, All-Juiced-Up. You clearly don’t have a clue.

No Spazzman, you clearly don’t have a clue. Both inductive arguments and deductive arguments draw inferences. That is what we do when use logic, we draw inferences. You blatantly contradicted yourself when you said...

”I am NOT inferring that naturalism is true.”

”I AM inferring that naturalism is true...”

You don’t seem to have a clue that it cannot be the case that you are both inferring that naturalism is true and not inferring that naturalism is true.



You also don’t seem to have a clue that naturalism cannot be both true and not true. You say absurd things like…

”For all practical purposes naturalism is proven and true.”

”Is naturalism true etc[?] It is not in an absolute sense.”



Now, where were you because I’ve lost track. Is naturalism true or not true today? Are you inferring that it is true or not inferring that it is true today?