We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Geoff Benson • 2 weeks ago

These research questions regarding the resurrection never take a step back to a more fundamental issue; did Jesus actually exist? I'm sure most would reply absolutely yes, but only because we've been conditioned to think it, and asking the question may sow seeds of doubt.

I don't know if there was a real Jesus, but there's a lot of perfectly valid academic opinion that supports the mythical position. Without doubt, the evidence either way is actually weak. By asking this question it inevitably leads to a dawning realisation that talk of the resurrection of a person whose existence can't be verified is absurd.

Luke Breuer • 1 week ago
… there's a lot of perfectly valid academic opinion that supports the mythical position.

I'm curious; does that literature explain why Jesus was imagined to be of the character that the Gospels allege? I've done a little studying of this matter, aided by Otto Borchert's The Original Jesus, and it seems that Jesus is a rather odd character for anyone to invent. Are there rational explanations for his being a fictional invention, which are somehow falsifiable? (That is, they need to be distinguishable from just-so stories. I realize this works differently in historical work than scientific.)

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

it's a matter of logic.there is no reaom to think he didn;t, His existence s considers fact by historians,

G.Shelley • 2 weeks ago

No, most Historians have made no effort to look at the matter. It is considered a fact by theologians and biblical scholars

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago
it's a matter of logic.there is no reaom to think he didn;t, His existence s considers fact by historians,

It's a matter of logic evidence. There is no reason to think he didn't. His existence is considered fact by some, but not all historians, mainly those who were born and raised Christian. There are no corroborating eyewitness reports of him being anything other than a myth, like Hercules, another half-god of the era.

Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

stupid, you know nothing abojut argument, you don;t even know about presumption, fool

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

As I keep saying the transition was deliminator y committee chair and so on were atheists. Only a tiny handful of historians take Jesus myth seriously,

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Only a tiny handful of historians give a crap about the Jesus myth. No kidding, I just lost a very dear friend who was a professor of history. And he had no opinion on the matter -- because he didn't care about that particular slide of history. Wasn't his area of expertise.

The question isn't whether there is a "tiny handful" of historians who believe thus-and-such -- because there is only a "tiny handful" of historians who actually can discuss the matter authoritatively at all. As a percentage of the historians who study such things, I daresay there is probably a larger proportion of qualified experts who are Jesus mythists than there are qualified experts who dispute whether Socrates was "real" or not.

Where's the contemporaneous eyewitness evidence that Jesus existed? Even Bart Ehrman cannot provide it; but only declares that such evidence did exist at one point in the past. That's pretty weak tea. Especially for someone who was for one fateful week among the most-famous people in the region -- if the tales told are even remotely true.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

I've already told you. Hey Linked to a whole page full of arguments,you afraid to really study the other side's evidence.

Paul knew sever people who had to have known Jesus. If they made Jesus was it had to be a conspiracy not a slow gradual myth as most mythers construct it.

Peter
John
James
Philip
Andrnicus
Junia
Priscilla
Aquilla

Helmutt Koester argued that Paul had a saying source, So by mid 50s there's already a corpus of Jesus' teachings that's pretty tough if they made him up, That takes it back to that conspiracy theory which is stupid you can't pull it off.

There's only oe version of the story but myth always proliferates.

There are about 35 Gospels that we knw of some of them earlier than the canonical and not one of them had Jesus not existing not a flesh and blood man in history (within the first couple of centuries) or tells a different story.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

I made four arguments you affairs toanswer

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Still waiting.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

still waiting

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

What, no reply?

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

fool

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

I do sleep, you know.

G.Shelley • 2 weeks ago

Many people who are dedicated to the idea that Jesus was historical simply don't care what the evidence is. It's enough for them that the people who they think are probably aware of the evidence have concluded he did
Which is why the most common responses to "There is no decent evidence of Jesus as a historical figure" are "Historians think he was real" and "Mythicism was debunked a long time ago"

They weill also be totally unfamiliar with the mythicist arguments, so will often think they can refute it either by facts that aren't the case (such a Paul mentioning all those people who knew a historical Jesus) or that as just straw man arguments

Kevin K • 1 week ago

I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument, to see if I can find a kernel of something there. It's difficult because of the basic incoherence of its author; but here goes: Paul talked to people who allegedly "knew" Jesus.

That seems to be the gist of it.

Except that we have no writings extant from those people who allegedly talked to Paul that directly declare they interacted with a living Jesus. In addition, Paul never directly relates any conversation with any person where those alleged eyewitnesses revealed direct knowledge of the corporeal existence of Jesus.

I find this to be uncompelling as evidence, and a pretty weak argument. In fact, any hint of Jesus' corporeal nature -- his height, his demeanor, his facial features, the way he walked, his favorite foods, the color of his robe, whatever -- is missing completely from any account I'm familiar with.

I think my goalposts are still pretty firmly in place. I would like contemporaneous corroboration of the secular events described in the gospels. From credible sources who were there at the time (of which there were plenty); or from later credible sources who are providing extended commentary on those eyewitness reports should the original source documents be lost. Fan fiction (aka, non-canonical gospels) don't fit the bill.

Frankly, even if we were to grant the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum (and I most certainly don't), Josephus doesn't fit that bill, either. Because he doesn't mention any of the secular events described in the gospels, other than being "condemned to the cross by Pilate". Weak tea.

If such corroboration can be found, I remove my objections. If it cannot be found (and so far, it hasn't been, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation), then I think the safer, more-conservative viewpoint is to adhere to the null hypothesis.

We certainly have plenty of examples of pseudo-historical figures, many of whom were not proposed as objects of veneration. Homer, Socrates, etc.

We also have the rather common practice of veneration of half-god-half-human figures who are obviously mythic in nature. Hercules, Mithra, Osiris, Romulus, etc.

Taking the various lines of evidence together -- including the "absence of evidence" line -- I think my skepticism is clearly warranted.

This is how history works. Not how he imagines it working.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Well, in the case of the current instance, this is someone who makes claims that he can't back up, despite declaring himself to be being well-versed in the evidence. He makes empty, hollow, evidence-free assertions, and then gets angry and defensive when asked for the actual evidence that support his contentions.

I'm simply asking for exactly the kinds of evidence I would expect to be extant if we were talking about other pseudo-historical/historical figures. We know Alexander the Great lived because we have contemporaneous eyewitness reports (in spades) and other hard evidence. We are fairly certain Homer did not, despite the busts of "Homer" that have been created. Hercules was a myth -- but he may have been based on an ancient king and the tales started out as hagiography.

I am applying the exact same standard to this other fellow, who if he actually existed, did so in a time and at a place that was chock-a-block full of people who chronicled the events of that time and place minutely. It is absolutely not too much to ask. If such evidence is presented to me, I will acknowledge that this fellow did indeed exist in the flesh -- my skepticism will have been resolved.

And then all of the theist's work is still ahead of him -- but that's a different issue entirely.

G.Shelley • 2 weeks ago

So his argument "My PhD professors said it was silly to think Jesus wasn't real, so that's good enough" wasn't enough for you.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Basically.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

the issue was what historians think genius, that;s what the argument was, use your brain.

G.Shelley • 2 weeks ago

What Historians think on a subject for which they lack expertise or knowledge, is no more relevant than what they think on climate changed. This isn't a difficult concept, so I can't think of a way to explain it to you so you would understand.

Cozmo the Magician • 2 weeks ago

My invisible imaginary pet dragon knows lots of historians who say your are full of bat guano.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

And, of course, this is another unevidenced claim.

There are historians on both sides of the issue of many issues...I consider myself skeptical of either side's claim until provided with enough evidence for me to make an informed decision.

In the case of Peter, for example, I see no writings of Peter where he declares that he spoke with Jesus, walked with Jesus, ate with Jesus, shat in a ditch next to Jesus, or gave Jesus a reach-around while they were having wild passionate gay sex.

And FWIW, Biblical scholars question the authenticity of BOTH 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

Well, in the case of the current instance, this is someone who makes claims that he can't back up, despite declaring himself to be being well-versed in the evidence. He makes empty, hollow, evidence-free assertions, and then gets angry and defensive when asked for the actual evidence that support his contentions.

Well, in the case of the current instance, this is someone who makes claims that he can't back up, despite declaring himself to be being well-versed in the evidence. He makes empty, hollow, evidence-free assertions, and then gets angry and defensive when asked for the actual evidence that support his contentions.

I'm simply asking for exactly the kinds of evidence I would expect to be extant if we were talking about other pseudo-historical/historical figures. We know Alexander the Great lived because we have contemporaneous eyewitness reports (in spades) and other hard evidence. We are fairly certain Homer did not, despite the busts of "Homer" that have been created. Hercules was a myth -- but he may have been based on an ancient king and the tales started out as hagiography.

I am applying the exact same standard to this other fellow, who if he actually existed, did so in a time and at a place that was chock-a-block full of people who chronicled the events of that time and place minutely. It is absolutely not too much to ask. If such evidence is presented to me, I will acknowledge that this fellow did indeed exist in the flesh -- my skepticism will have been resolved.

And then all of the theist's work is still ahead of him -- but that's a different issue entirely.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

You really should have someone proof your blog, BTW. You refer to Polycarp as Polycrap on the title page. I laughed HARD.

FWIW:
1. Paul -- never saw the living Jesus. Said so himself.
2. Philip -- never saw the living Jesus
3. Papias -- never saw the living Jesus
4. Clement of Rome -- never saw the living Jesus
5. Polycrap (your spelling) -- never saw the living Jesus.

In addition to that, none of those people appears to directly quote any document or other testimony attesting to someone having spent time with the living Jesus.

5. Josephus -- not a contemporaneous eyewitness, the Testimonium Flavium is a known interpolation.

6. Thallus...not an eyewitness to the events...an anti-apologist. Irrelevant.

7. Phelgon -- again, not a contemporaneous eyewitness, nor even a second-hand witness.

8. The Talmud -- really? None of this comes even close to describing events that happened in Jerusalem. And is it any wonder that the rabbis would be upset over some Jews starting a new religion?

9. Celsus -- now we're getting up to 100 years after the fact. Come on, man! You're embarrassing yourself.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

you have not answered the evidence I;' ve given, you obviously you are the one who does not care what the evidence is,you have not answered,I made four arguments you have not answered one,

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

you have not answered my arguments foo, lyingshit hole I gave you argunets a ndevidenceyou havenot answered them ass.

Paul knewPeter, how ouldPpetervpass off mjade up jessu wh ywouldn;t Paul get teh drift? I Paul knew pete waht idd theytgalk about?

HOW DID PAUL GET A SAYING SOURCE OF JESS TEACHINGS IF THERE WAS NO JESUS?

you have not answers,

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago
HOW DID PAUL GET A SAYING SOURCE OF JESS TEACHINGS IF THERE WAS NO JESUS?

Almost coherent.

1. Who says there is a "saying source" for Paul? Paul doesn't say this. Paul declares he received all of his information about Jesus from the visions he had of him, as well as scripture -- which in this instance means OLD TESTAMENT scripture. Because there was no such thing as "New Testament" scripture....EVERY historian agrees that the scriptures didn't come until much later. Even if based on "oral history", that doesn't make them SCRIPTURE because by definition SCRIPTURE is written down!

2. And again, how does this provide evidence of a corporeal Jesus? Someone told Paul something. Who? What did they say? How does this equate to that person having direct knowledge of the events associated with Jesus? It's a big fat zero. Empty. Devoid of content that tells us anything about whether or not there was a corporeal Jesus.

3. How do we have the teachings of the Herculean cult if there was no Hercules? How do we have the book of the dead if Osiris wasn't real? How did Rome get founded unless Romulus was born of a virgin and raised by wolves? Just because someone says something, that does not attest to its authenticity.

Here's what I would expect if Jesus were a corporeal person. There would be some mention of his exploits in materials outside of the holy books and their fan fiction alternatives that corroborate the necessities of a corporeal existence.

For example, Simon of Peraea. I think the historical data is more the sufficient to declare that Simon of Peraea was a former slave of Herod who led a rebellion against the Romans and was killed in 4 BCE. And who is mentioned as a Messiah. We have source documents, we have historical documents, the case is closed. Simon of Peraea was a Messiah who pre-dated the Jesus story by 20 to 30 years.

Cozmo the Magician • 2 weeks ago

Using this troll's arguments I could prove Superman was real because of all the books, comics, tv, and movies made about him. Hell , when I was a kid Spiderman even came and visited a local shopping center. I even got his autograph. So i can PROVE that spiderman and superman are just as 'real' as Jesus; i.e. not at all real. But hey, good luck feeding the troll.

Kevin K • 1 week ago

Every religion for which there is a half-human, half-god object of veneration also would be open to this sort of "proof". Which includes Hinduism, the Greco-Roman cult of Hercules, the ancient Egyptian religion (Osiris was half-human, half-god), and dozens of others.

Jimmy S.M. • 2 weeks ago

It would go something like this- Paul meets the cult leaders in Jerusalem a few years after his vision, Peter, James, etc. The argument would be that these cult leaders 'met' Jesus the same way Paul did, in visions. People want to read these characters from the gospels back into Paul, as people who knew Jesus as a man, but the idea is that the gospel of Mark wrote these cult leaders back into a fictional history, and Mt,Lk & Jn followed suit.

FWIW, I'm at about 55% on the side historicity, just giving an alternative here

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

In fact, Paul declares that the only way anyone saw Jesus was in the manner that Paul himself did -- as a vision. So, it's quite likely that they spoke of the Jesus that they venerated -- as a figure in heaven who was martyred in heaven. This was the Gnostic belief ... and the Gnostics were among the earliest, if not the original, Christians.

That there are cult leaders who did not "see" the object of veneration is not a big deal. The cult of Hercules was 1200 years old at the time of Paul. Nobody saw Hercules, yet the cult sprang up, and persisted.

So, I'm afraid Paul doesn't really provide any evidence of a "real" Jesus. And of Peter we know very, very little. The two epistles in the bible attributed to him are generally recognized as forgeries, written by two separate people. Just as many of the Pauline epistles are forgeries.

Jimmy S.M. • 2 weeks ago

When Joe says his unnamed professor from many(?) years ago calls this idiotic, that seems like an emotional response, not an academic response. I don't think Joe can imagine not having an emotional reaction to something so important to him, but seriously, the existence of a guy at center of these myths is kinda interesting but wouldn't change much if anything about my worldview. That's not why I don't believe.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Oh, I completely agree. Whether or not there was a "real" Jesus is irrelevant to the broader questions of whether there is a god, whether Jesus represented his avatar on Earth, and all of that.

Providing evidence that Jesus was actually real would be the first step, not the last step.

Frankly, having Jesus be real would make it easier to explain him being a false prophet. Who, were he not dead, should be stoned.

But I persist, because he's a god-botherer infesting an atheist blog, so he deserves absolutely every little thing he's getting.

Cozmo the Magician • 2 weeks ago

"Who, were he not dead, should be stoned." reading the bible I came to think the authors must have been stoned (; Revelations sounds like a serious messed up acid trip. Did 'magic mushrooms' grow in the mid-east back then?

Steven Watson • 1 week ago

"The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" by John Marco Allegro. "Possibly the single most ludicrous book on Jesus scholarship by a qualified academic." wrote Philip Jenkins. He might have had a point: Jesus was a 'shroom and God a giant spunking penis in the sky; but I found it no more barking than the mainstream product. Forty years on I might revist it for a giggle. :-)

Kevin K • 1 week ago

Actually, that's been proposed. John of Patmos is the person to whom Revelation is attributed to. And there's a story (how much of this is real, I can't say) that this person was at Patmos because he had been exiled there for being a big fat Christian pain the in ass. And he was consigned to live in a cave -- which is full of magic mushrooms.

That's the story I've heard, at least. I can't verify it; but it sure makes sense given the ... um ... vivid imagery.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Where did Homer get the source of the story of the Trojan Wars if there was no Homer?

Where did the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh get the source of their story if there was no Gilgamesh?

How did the authors of the story of the founding of Rome get their story if there was no Romulus and Remus?

How did the Herculean feats get written down if there was no Hercules?

Cozmo the Magician • 2 weeks ago

Where did the story of Star Wars come from if there was no Han Solo (and fuck yeah, he DID fire first O_o)

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago
Paul knewPeter, how ouldPpetervpass off mjade up jessu wh ywouldn;t Paul get teh drift? I Paul knew pete waht idd theytgalk about?

This is gibberish. It looks like your cat ran across the keyboard. I cannot make sense of it.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

Britanica Encyclopidia

Jesus
WRITTEN BY: E.P. Sanders, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan
LAST UPDATED: 12-3-2015 See Article History
Alternative Titles: Christ, ʿIsā, ʿIsā ibn Maryam, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Nazarene
Jesus
Jesus

ALSO KNOWN AS
Christ
Jesus of Galilee
Jesus son of Joseph
Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus the Nazarene
ʿIsā
Jesus Christ
ʿIsā ibn Maryam
BORN
c. 6 BCE
Bethlehem
DIED
c. 30
Jerusalem, Israel
VIEW BIOGRAPHIES RELATED TO
CATEGORIES
Christianity

RELATED BIOGRAPHIES
Huldrych Zwingli
Nikolay Gogol
John Bunyan
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Karl Barth
Dante
Leo Tolstoy
Martin Luther
Origen
John Knox
Jesus, also called Jesus Christ, Jesus of Galilee, or Jesus of Nazareth (born c. 6–4 bc, Bethlehem—died c. ad 30, Jerusalem), religious leader revered in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions. He is regarded by most Christians as the Incarnation of God. The history of Christian reflection on the teachings and nature of Jesus is examined in the article Christology.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Really? An encyclopedia entry as a proof source that Jesus existed? You realize there are encyclopedia entries for Odysseus, Romulus, Homer, and Hercules...right?

Where is the source document from a contemporaneous eyewitness corroborating the accounts of the secular events outlined in the gospels? Here are the goalposts. They haven't moved, and won't.

1. Source document. Either the original, or a credible (non-forgery) discussion of that document.
2. Written by an eyewitness to the events that happened in that area AT THAT TIME. Not some historical retelling of an oral history.
3. Confirming the secular events outlined in the gospels.

Such events can include -- but are not limited to:
A. A preacher riding into Jerusalem before Passover to great acclaim by the multitudes.
B. A preacher giving sermons to 5,000 persons or more.
C. A healing preacher who could barely move about the countryside because he was so famous due to his acts of kindness.
D. A heretic and blasphemer who was executed by the Romans via crucifixion -- with or without thieves (which are clearly McGuffins)
E. Pilate sparing a man condemned to death named Barabbas. (Another McGuffin) This one isn't direct proof, but it's another piece of evidence that is missing. Pilate never did such a thing and never would. The gospels say it happened. The gospels lied.
F. A crazy preacher turning over the money-changing tables at Passover (an act of terrorism that would have been as shocking to those people at that time as flying planes into buildings were to us in 2001.)

I won't hold my breath.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

Kevin K Joe Hinman • 2 hours ago
Really? An encyclopedia entry as a proof source that Jesus existed? You realize there are encyclopedia entries for Odysseus, Romulus, Homer, and Hercules...right?

good God you are an idiot,
look asshole encyclopedia is a valid reference work, when they talk about figures known as myth they say so,
when they talk about figures accepted as real they say so.
That means Jesus is still accepted by history as real. that gives me presumption, look it up PRESUMPTION PRESUMPTION AS IN IT'S YOUR BURDEN of PROOF ASSHOE

Where is the source document from a contemporaneous eyewitness corroborating the accounts of the secular events outlined in the gospels? Here are the goalposts. They haven't moved, and won't.

I've already told you answer my argument fool besides it;s not enough to just question you have to have evidence that it needs to be mistimed because I HAVE PRESUMPTION BECAUSE IT;S TAKEN AS FACT BY HISTORY, FOOL

1. Source document. Either the original, or a credible (non-forgery) discussion of that document.
2. Written by an eyewitness to the events that happened in that area AT THAT TIME. Not some historical retelling of an oral history.
3. Confirming the secular events outlined in the gospels.

that is not necessarily the way a historian looks at evidence. That would be idea lif we don;t have there are other ways,we know the material from textual criticism.

Such events can include -- but are not limited to:
A. A preacher riding into Jerusalem before Passover to great acclaim by the multitudes.

You tire trying to establish Jesus' existence by the truth of stories about him that is not valid, not the historians work.

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

So, you can't provide me the evidence, then. Got it.

Failure. Big failure. Big fat failure.

Come back when you have the evidence.

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

I just did dumb ass. The fact that Paul uses a saying source is evidence fucker, get a brain. just because you are unread and don';t know the issues doesn;t mean it;s not evidence,

I made four arguments I gave evidence o each you have not answered a single one,not one,not one,not one,

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Ah, the mean Joe who resorts to insults, including in bad Greek, has surfaced again. Which means you've lost the battle, but continue to fight on. You're the dark knight in the Monty Python skit.

1. Arguments are not evidence. Ask the folks over at aquinas.org to explain that to you.

2. Paul speaking to someone who you declare saw a "living" person is not evidence. Did those people ever, ever, ever produce any writings that clearly and boldly describe being with this person while alive (not in visions, as Paul had)? I think not, else you would have produced them.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Joe Hinman • 2 weeks ago

moronic little Dawkie troll. stupid Trump like Dakie troll

Kevin K • 2 weeks ago

Drunk this early?

Geoff Benson • 2 weeks ago

Nail and head comes to mind.