Historical evidence of Jesus

Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Have not read this book, but its got good reviews.... The author is a self described "active atheist" (so likely to have a bias) and historical researcher (so not all historians think jesus existed)
Where do you get the idea that the amateur historian of David Fitzgerald’s fringe theory has got “good reviews”?

David Fitzgerald is not a scholar by the way.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,101
Would you care for an objective opinion on the matter if it was different than yours? You're getting one right now. I'm not a religious or spiritual person. There is nothing about the miracles in the gospel that translate to reality for me.

With that being said, I look at the scholars and historians who are seasoned in interperting ancient writings and their validity and draw my conclusions against that. In the same sentence, they call the gospels of Christianity embeliishments and religious propaganda. Personally, again personally, I find that information to be telling in regards to objectivity and it goes in line with my mode of thinking. There is no reason as to why they would say he existed and then discredit his message as motivated to push religious sentiment.

Would it make a difference if he did exist in whether or not Christianity is based on factual accounts? I think it makes no difference at all.

There is a difference between being an Atheist and an Agnostic. Atheism seems terribly exhausting to me. You're not going to change someones opinion on their faith, so why bother?
Starting from the end , I dont think Atheism implies that one needs to go and change the religious opinion of others (actually its the deeply religious who tend and try to do that)....

What is the objective opinion you are talking about ? That the existing "evidence" is enough ? I guess its fine as long as you apply the same standards elsewhere... As we have seen it may mean that we'd need to accept a "historical Hercules" (which btw is a possibility) and other such things....

With regards to your first point, its only SOME scholars who do that... There are many out there maintaining that the resurrection is a fact or that earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago...

And I am going to disappoint you , people dont necessarily act "logically" (why would logically someone walk into a police station and confess to a crime that he did not commit.... yet some people do that) so trying to second guess their motives based on your (or my) personal worldview often does not work... We often think in this way "I would not do that, so he would not do that either"... unfortunately often times he does....

And yes the existence of jesus does not change the facts of christianity for most people -after all many religions were and some still are based on characters that did not exist in real life- (though it probably would be a problem for some..... and this fear may drive some to be defensive on the topic)
 
Likes: Edratman
Jan 2019
130
USA
Starting from the end , I dont think Atheism implies that one needs to go and change the religious opinion of others (actually its the deeply religious who tend and try to do that)....

What is the objective opinion you are talking about ? That the existing "evidence" is enough ? I guess its fine as long as you apply the same standards elsewhere... As we have seen it may mean that we'd need to accept a "historical Hercules" (which btw is a possibility) and other such things....

With regards to your first point, its only SOME scholars who do that... There are many out there maintaining that the resurrection is a fact or that earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago...

And I am going to disappoint you , people dont necessarily act "logically" (why would logically someone walk into a police station and confess to a crime that he did not commit.... yet some people do that) so trying to second guess their motives based on your (or my) personal worldview often does not work... We often think in this way "I would not do that, so he would not do that either"... unfortunately often times he does....

And yes the existence of jesus does not change the facts of christianity for most people -after all many religions were and some still are based on characters that did not exist in real life- (though it probably would be a problem for some..... and this fear may drive some to be defensive on the topic)
Fair enough.

In regards to motivation, there is a reason why motive has such an important role in determining a person's past or present actions (even in a court of law). I hold weight to what that motive might be in this context since there appears to be quite a few people who are on your side of the fence here. I don't see the motivation in being on both sides of the aisle. That alone doesn't bring me to any conclusion, but it certainly helps in constructing one. That's all I was trying to illustrate with motivation response.

The existence of Jesus is a HUGE problem for Christians. It would change everything. However, for someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, it changes nothing. Jesus could have existed and the entire religion be based on fabrication. In fact, it's the most likely of scenarios.

Your comment on logic doesn't disappoint me at all. I don't really understand the context, but I can accept what you're saying. Another belief I have is that academics and historians in most cases take a logical approach in dissecting information. Again though, that is just another opinion that I have.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
I am glad that you trust linguists. Here's one of them:

I am glad that you made such a howler and shot yourself on your own foot so the neutral readers can see where you are getting your information from.

Just because you have access to internet and can type some alphabets do not mean you have a case.

“Armenian Genocide is a lie – Turkish Grey Wolves and Kemal Ataturk honor” – click – now you can find materials about genocide denial.

“Holocaust is a lie and evidence against the Academia and Jews” – click – now you can find homepages that promotes holocaust denial.

“The Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed by the evil Muslims” – click – now you can find rightwing-homepages that promotes that ahistorical nonsense.

“The Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed by the wicked Christians, and Hypatia was killed because of hatred of science.” – click – now you can find neo-atheistic homepages that promotes that ahistorical nonsense as well.



If you still don’t get my point, then let me help you since you obviously don’t use critical thinking when browsing the internet:

Dorothy Milne Murdock is, just as with Richard Carrier, not a scholar (and not even a linguistic at all) and she also promotes the “Jesus-Myth”-fringe theory to start with. Also, you found your source from this very suspicious page without any academia credibility here: Stellar House Publishing | Home

… which is a home page that promotes conspiracies. And which actually reminds me of a satire made by Sacha Baron Cohen’s role as Billy Wayne Ruddick:



"The international institute of truth and knowledge" :lol:

And that page where you learn your history from: “Stellar House: specializing in Archeology, History, Astrotheology, Mythology and Religion". And you can even make a donation so the webmaster can pay for the mortgage, and that is exactly the same reason why Richard Carrier is an blogger and a beggar, and NOT a scholar after all. :lol:

And here is the David Fitzgerald in which that another debater relies on:

David Fitzgerald | Center for Inquiry

“Center for Inquiry”.:lol:

But well, somehow I am not surprising that you got your materials from such a page. ;)
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,659
You appear to confuse that we are talking about the historicity of Jesus, not the religion itself.

The biblical Jesus that turned water into wine and walked on water certainly has not existed. Correct. Otherwise Christianity would not have been a religion anymore but the truth.

However, that Jesus as a Jewish preacher that came in conflict with the Roman authorities and was killed is certain to assume has existed, especially when Tacitus and Josephus also refer to him.
Yes but his teachings, speech. opinions, values. and everything thats makes him the christain Jesus of the Bible is totally unverifiable and unknown. His messgae ,teching and philopshy may have directing contravening the christian mythology.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,990
Dorothy Milne Murdock is, just as with Richard Carrier, not a scholar (and not even a linguistic at all) and she also promotes the “Jesus-Myth”-fringe theory to start with. Also, you found your source from this very suspicious page without any academia credibility here: Stellar House Publishing | Home

Dr. Paul J. Hopper is a scholar? If have not noticed it's his paper is in question here - A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63

So why are you picking at Murdock and Carrier?

Maybe for a moment you quit name calling and smilies posting and contest Hopper's argumentation?
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
It was you who picked Dorothy Milne Murdock as source just as everybody can go check on your own post nr 134 in first place, so if you don't want to try and fail to hide that you have been caught in using suspicious source from self-publishing unacademic page then don't pretend that you used the same source from the very beginning.

And no, I am in no way obligated to contest anything or read an arbitrary link from you as long as you have no clue what your own argument is and as I have never claimed that ALL linguistics/scholars agree that Josephus was genuine as I have claimed that "MOST" are. And even IF Josephus was an interpolation you would still have no case to prove that "Christ-myth"-theory you believe in as there still would be Tacitus by the way.

Try to do it better next time.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,474
T'Republic of Yorkshire
It was you who picked Dorothy Milne Murdock as source just as everybody can go check on your own post nr 134 in first place, so if you don't want to try and fail to hide that you have been caught in using suspicious source from self-publishing unacademic page then don't pretend that you used the same source from the very beginning.

And no, I am in no way obligated to contest anything or read an arbitrary link from you as long as you have no clue what your own argument is and as I have never claimed that ALL linguistics/scholars agree that Josephus was genuine as I have claimed that "MOST" are. And even IF Josephus was an interpolation you would still have no case to prove that "Christ-myth"-theory you believe in as there still would be Tacitus by the way.

Try to do it better next time.
What did I tell you? Obviously, you failed to take heed.

Goodbye El Cid. You will not be returning.
 
Nov 2018
12
Australia
Are they created in just decades?
About 14 decades actually - almost a century and a half between the alleged events and the gospels becoming known to outsiders to criticise.

Even the earliest Christian writer to show knowledge of the gospels was Justin Martyr, around 150 AD or so.

But the first pagan outsider to read and criticise the gospels wasn't until Celsus, around 170 AD or so (he called them fiction based on myths.)

Before then its just unclear comments like Paul's heavenly Christ.
 
Likes: Hoosierhiver

Similar History Discussions