what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[Jac3510]

I have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?

Again, since your studies are so exhaustive, I simply look forward to your publication in a peer reviewed journal such as JSHJ. If you have come to such a firm conclusion so radically opposed to what non-Christian scholars have concluded, I'm sure they are eager to see your ground breaking research. Further, since they are exhaustive, be sure to include your in your bibliography all the relevant studies from the first, second, and third quests for the historical Jesus. Again, I'm going to take you at your word that your studies have been exhaustive, so I'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

[PoopShoot]

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists
You'll notice that the first several listings are of atheists in scholarly professions.

[freeservant]

I like the minimal facts approach when it comes to the questions about Jesus.

http://warrantedbelief.wordpress.com/20 ... -approach/

There are many facts that surround the life of Jesus and early Christianity from the New Testament, other Christian writers, non-Christian writers, and archaeology, but not all of them are universally accepted as historical fact.  What a minimal facts approach considers as historical evidence, therefore, is data that are both strongly evidenced and accepted by almost all scholars who study the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.  It says nothing about whether the person using this approach considers the New Testament to be the inspired word of God or not, but it simply treats the New Testament as any other historical document, so that those who do not consider it to be the word of God must still account the evidence presented.  This approach allows for a comprehensive case for the resurrection, for not only can it be used to show Jesus’ resurrection to be the best explanation of the known historical facts, it is also sufficient to refute the opposing theories as to what happened on Easter Sunday.  There are 4 facts that are strongly evidenced and granted by virtually all scholars on the subject (In the high 90’s in percentage) and 1 fact that is not as well accepted, but that still enjoys acceptance among 75% of such scholars.  These facts, which we will look at one at a time, are: Jesus’ death by crucifixion, the belief among Jesus’ disciples that He rose from the dead and appeared to them, the church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed, the skeptic James was suddenly changed, and the slightly less accepted fact, the tomb of Jesus was empty.

When it comes to true scholars who have the appropriate academic credentials anyone who could produce compelling warranted evidence that Jesus never existed would have to have an exhaustive about of powerful data in order to pass the peer review process.

[lundberg500]

I'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

You are honestly looking forward me publishing an article? Are you serious?

Other members here, is Jac always this way?

perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple.

It's really not just me. I didn't come up with this theory all on my own. I know it's hard for you to believe but there are many, many others who believe the same thing as I do.

You can have whatever last word you want on this

Somehow, I don't believe that you will let me get a last word on you...    

[Jac3510]

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists
You'll notice that the first several listings are of atheists in scholarly professions.

Just for clarification, I didn't say that the entire scholarly community is Christian. I said the scholarly community that deals with the historical Jesus acknowledges, at bare minimum, his existence. There is a broad consensus around several major facts, but of course there is debate even on this consensus, but his existence? No, that's beyond dispute.

If anyone really believes that Jesus never existed, I strongly recommend to them the aforementioned link on Napoleon's non-existence. It shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to read the entire essay and it is very informative. I would also recommend them to Baruch Halpern's The First Historians, for while he doesn't deal with Jesus' existence, this non-Christian, highly critical scholar has done a fantastic job pointing out the faults in historical Pyrrhonism and historical positivism, which sets the general methodological approach for dealing with any question, including, especially, those like our present issue, namely, the historical Jesus and what can be known about Him.

[pinkocommie]

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

[freeservant]

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

[Davin]

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

I'm happy to point out that it doesn't matter how many people believe a false thing, it's still false.

[DropLogic]

I don't understand how you can dismiss unicorns so easily, and not dismiss the Jesus myth with the same ease.
The idea of Jesus was used as a control mechanism and nothing more.
Who are we to doubt the accuracy of 1700 year old documents, revised from 2000 year old documents?  That's a long ass game of telephone if you ask me.
Jac will never be convinced that he is wrong, and he will never convince the people on this forum that they are wrong.  
Imagine magnets, - to -
End of discussion.

[i_am_i]

If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

On the assumption that God does not exist, you are of course right. Do you have any proof of the non-existence of God  so that I should adopt your position? A mere lack of belief isn't enough, because if we have historical reasons to believe that Jesus actually did those things, then that would just furnish evidence of God's existence, as would any miracle. If, on the other hand, we know that God does not exist, then we can dismiss miracles out of hand.

Did I say God with a capital G? Not at all.

Obviously you believe the stories told about Jesus in the New Testament actually happened. There isn't any mystery about it, that's your agenda, that's what you're about here, that God with a capital G exists and Jesus is His with a capital H's son who died for everybody's sins.

So this comes down to the definition of your atheism. Are you a strong atheist who knows that God does not exist? If so, your statements are fair, and I will ask you for your evidence that God does not exist. Or are you a weak atheist who simply lacks belief in God? If so, then I would ask you to retract your statement in recognition of the fact that we do not know that such things are impossible, because that presumes knowledge that you do not have (the impossibility of miracles via the non-existence of God).

Again, I don't understand what it is you're saying. My definition of atheism? I fail to see how you arrived at that.

What do you mean when you say that we don't know that it's impossible for an executed man to be dead for three days and then come back to life and get up and start walking around? Are you actually saying that as far as you're concerned that isn't impossible?

Also, your categories of atheists is completely, and there's no other word for it, jive. I'm nothing like either of those two simplistic caricatures of atheists you've described here.

[pinkocommie]

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Yeah, it's not sufficiently established.  Saying it is doesn't make it so.  Also, new converts to a religion in no way make the Jesus myth more factual.  Or were you joking?  Boy, I sure hope so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Ad populum fallacy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Ad homineim attacks are a reliable indicator of a failed argument on the part of the insulter.

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

Scholars were wrong about the luminiferous æther; and that had no implications, really, regarding faith.  In this matter, regarding faith, I'd think the likelihood of error would be higher.

[Sophus]

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

Plenty of teens are airheads. Plenty of them aren't. You're attacking the person and not the facts. Just because a bunch of people believe Jesus wasn't a myth doesn't make it true. There are a number of scholars on the very subject who think his existence was highly unlikely, and i don't just mean the God-man hybrid who can walk on water.

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Thumpy nailed it, this is Ad populum. "The masses believe it, therefore it must be true. As in, "Eat shit! Ten million flies can't be wrong.'" ~ Bill Maher

[radicalaggrivation]

I have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?

Again, since your studies are so exhaustive, I simply look forward to your publication in a peer reviewed journal such as JSHJ. If you have come to such a firm conclusion so radically opposed to what non-Christian scholars have concluded, I'm sure they are eager to see your ground breaking research. Further, since they are exhaustive, be sure to include your in your bibliography all the relevant studies from the first, second, and third quests for the historical Jesus. Again, I'm going to take you at your word that your studies have been exhaustive, so I'd be interested in your article, which I thoroughly expect to be published in the very near future, to mediate between Wright and Crossan and to fully meet or debunk McCullagh's Cambridge published seven-fold test for determining an event's historicity. Really, I am honestly looking forward to these things.

Outside of that, I'm sorry, I just just can't take your position seriouslyl. I've met several teenagers who make these kinds of all encompassing statements (on both sides of the debate). When kids are so convinced they are right, I can only go back to a very wise saying I had posted on my wall in my own teenage years:

"Notice to teenagers: Tired of being hassled by unreasonable parents? Then get out now while you still know everything!"

Look, perhaps you are right and Jesus is a giant myth. If so, then the entire scholarly community has been duped and you have had the clear-headedness to see through the mirage. If that's the case, then I stand in awe of you and must beg to become your disciple. But shy of that, there are serious historical discussions to be had, and Jesus' non-existence, Area 51, and whether or not we landed on the moon really don't qualify.

You can have whatever last word you want on this. As I have said before, I will take this up in serious detail in the near future.

It is hard to start on the subject of Jesus' historicity with out a large commitment of time. I have recently had an extensive and in depth debate about this very subject. I did not do any ground breaking research by my standards but it does not mean that we cannot make a very valid argument against Jesus with the evidence we do have. You treat Jesus like he is more special than any other deity that has been worshiped by fearful, ignorant people. I do not say ignorant in the pejorative sense but in the literal sense of the word. Just because people have once again, as a large social group, decided to believe one ridiculous thing (like a man throwing lightning bolts at you when he is pissed) it does not make this particular instance more or less important and special to those who believed it then and believe it now.

I can tell you right now, based on what I have researched, that there is no solid evidence that Jesus existed. I have personally addressed some of the strongest arguments I could find on the topic. The fact is, a belief in a historical Jesus is purely a leap of faith, thinly veiled with a web of pseudo-science and highly disputable sources. The only argument I have not been able to counter is the dispute over Pauline (or Saul) texts. That is only because the argument boils down to personal interpretation. Some of the arguments leveled against this topic so far have touched on some very valid topics and I can show you why you are incorrect for the reasons you dismissed them. Whenever you have the time (and I know just how time consuming it is) to respond please do. PM me when you do so I can respond to you.

And by the way. Saying that people should submit this and that to publications or journals is a little childish don't you think? I mean there are scholars on either side of this issue and many in between as well. There is no overwhelming consensus on whether Jesus was real or not. There is no overwhelming textual or physical evidence for either side of the argument. I have an argument that boils down to the irrationality needed to posit the existence of Jesus based off the evidence. There is no extraordinary evidence. So why make it seem like you are not the one who has to bear the burden of proof? You came onto a website full of atheists for a reason I assume. Why would you charge everyone else with giving you evidence and not even have your argument prepared? Or did you just come on to argue?