We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
> NOT a relationship with Jesus
How do you have a relationship with a fictional character who would be long dead if he existed at all?
that is begging the question, your assertion that he's fictional is unsupported.
Any assertion that he is real is unsupported. Are you actually this stupid?
Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?,Hey stupid have you noticed all encyclopedias say Jesus existed?is that because they are stupid?
the vast majority of historians think Carrier is an obscure idiot and they knkow Jesus existed, its considered historical fact that has not changed. You are not a historian. you have stuck your head into a black hole called new atheism it;s an ideological camp. You are looking at the evidence through their ideological lens, you are brain washed,
"its considered historical fact that has not changed."
NO idiot, it is NOT, no matte how much you cry and scream otherwise. Lying to yourself won't help you. It's got nothing to do with 'new atheism" you moron, it's got to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE he existed. Your pathetic childish whining and strawman bullshit only makes you look like a whiny 12 year old.
"Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?'
Speaking of strawmen. I never said that. Can you not read, or are you just a dishonest bitch? Again, it has NOTHING to do with "disagreeing", it has to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE for this person actually existing. NONE. There are NO first hand accounts, no evidence. None. Trying misdirection with strawman and you just being a dishonest little whiner won't change that fact. Cry all you like, but at least TRY and not be a dishonest bullshit artist to cover your butthurt. You can';t list any evidence, because there ISN'T any. THis is a fact, not an opinion. Even those who "believe" he "probably" existed aren't stupid enough to try claiming his existence is a "fact'. WHat a moron
wow that's so mature. Calling people names man that proves it, you must be right. Most of us outgrew that level of childishness in third grade. I wont bother to make rational arguments to you but if we can't trust the objectivity of religious scholars because they are biased by their beliefs how much less should be trust such a childish Trump-like fool who is passionate about his ignorance.
Really with your bigoted stupidity and childish behavior you could work as a bouncer at Trump towers. You're mentality fits with Trump's.
FFS, are you actually this stupid? I called out your bullshit and pointed out facts, and all you focus on is me pointing out what an idiot you clearly are? Christ, can you cry like a bitch any more? ALL you do is make claims and whine like a 5 year old girl. I point out facts, and you whine about anything except the points I made. Since, you know, you have NO EVIDENCE for ANY of your idiotic claims. You can cry and whinge as much as you like, the fact remains, you've got NOTHING. :)
you have no facts nor are you intellectually capable of assessing facts,I will not waste my time., you are a dunce.
Child, YOU are the one with "no facts", this is obvious. All you have done is make claim after claim, all while failing to support any of them. You're embarrassing yourself. Constantly WHINING and pretending to be something you are clearly NOT does not impress anyone child. I don't give a shit about "your time", YOU are the idiot who keeps making unsupported claims, and whining more when people point out you have nothing. Instead of supporting your claims, all you do is whine even more, and try to pretend to have any kind of intellectual superiority. You're just SAD child. If anyone is a "dunce", it's the IDIOT constantly making assertions that fly in the face of all evidence, and frankly, acting like a whiny child. Do grow up.
Actually Joe, not wishing to overly interfere in this 'debate', you keep referring to some facts you have, and I think you've mentioned a book from time to time?
Just give a flavour perhaps of the compelling factual evidence you have, so at least we can test your assertions.
I linked to my book. That was in regard to belief in God not the specific question of historical Jesus,link is up there
At a very non-theological level I would concede that there is, just possibly, some small evidence for an actual person that may form the basis of the Jesus fables. There is, however, no evidence for any kind of god; quite the reverse in fact.
sorry that;s wrong,it's also begging the question ,I am saying my book offers unique evidence for God that is not normally known to apologetic. and you ca't assert there's no evidence as a refutation of my claims without having read the book.
If I had a pound for every apologist who assures us he has 'new' evidence proving god, I'd be wealthy. Just watch Matt Dillahunty on Atheist Experience to see what I mean.
As with the foolish creationist claims that they have fantastic evidence to refute evolution, but which never receive a single proper peer review (let alone a Nobel Prize), so I see your book is not changing any minds. However, I'm conscious that I'm treading old ground, and that I'm probably in danger of derailing the thread so I'll leave it there.
I'm a Ph.d.d candidate in history of ideas in secular State university, I am quasi Darwinian not a creationist, and i was a communist and an atheist so I've heard the bull shit before,bull shit on both sides.
the evidence I have that is knew is avast body of quantitative work from peer reviewed journals in psychology dealing with religious experience, You go find me a christian apologist pushing that material and I'll apologize, you can't because i knw all apologists who have and there are only a couple in 50 years,
o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius! Of course I said it's accepted as historical fact. I don't need to prove Jesus existed with any independent evidence about him. All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." Historical facts are those facts regarded as factual by historians, one of them is the existence of Jesus as aman in history.
How do I know? Because I'm a historian and you are not. that means the historical Jesus has presumption, you have to overturn presumption, that means I don't have to prove he existed ,you have to prove he did not.
And another thing your little myther idiots have created their false academia because you can't compete with real academics. The standards that real historians work by rule out the myther crap,You have invent your own set of standards. If we did history by myther standards we would know nothing.
"o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius!"
You did that in your last post, you utter moron. Christ, it's like you get dumber with each post. Also, I actually pointed out FACTS, whereas all you did was make CLAIMS. Gee, not hard to tell who has an actual leg to stand on, eh? :)
"All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." '
No, it doesn't. , you poor deluded whiny bitch. and whining about 'names" when you went and did the SAME thing just highlights what a hypocritical whiny bitch you are. Again, NO EVIDENCE. His existence is NOT fact, no matter how desperately you pretend. And I laugh at your claim of being a 'historian", when no historian would claim his existence a s "fact". Seriously child, at least TRY to not make a complete embarrassment of yourself. :)
YOu can whine about "presumption" all you wnt, presuming is NOT EVIDENCE> Love how all you do is whine and cry like a bitch, instead of try and actually defend your claims. Since, you know, you CAN'T. :)
you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you. look stupid I don't have to prov he existed you must prove he did not,stupid,
> the vast majority of historians think Carrier is an obscure idiot
The vast majority of historians that even care about such myths work in religious 'schools' where they have to agree to bullshit like this to continue working. That is proof of the falsity of their claims.
that's bull shit. A lot of people who teach in religious schools are not believers or don't agree with the school,. To dogmatically reject their view just because of that mere affiliation means that we should be less willing to listen to atheists not more. If Being employed by a religious school means we can 't accept their objectivity then being an ideologue in an atheist movement is just the sane as being an extremist hot head and not to be trusted.
then to make these bigoted statements calling people names that proves my point. you are just a bigot who hates religion so you are not objective.
I think it is very unfair to call Jim Jones a bigot. The problem he is pointing out is not simply that "they are Christian, therefore they are wrong." The problem is that (nearly?) all religious schools require the signing of a statement of faith. From my perspective (as someone who has a BA in history - modern European history, but history nonetheless), it is difficult to accept any conclusion they make. In other words, if a condition of employment at the school requires the person to promise to never change their mind no matter what evidence is presented, how can I differentiate between their honest conclusion and their desire to maintain their employment? I wouldn't consider that to be scholarship. That is, if I am being generous, seeking out confirmation bias. They should be dismissed without a second thought. On the other hand, with Carrier, and the other mythicists, we have at least eliminated that clear conflict, making them more trustworthy.
Further, the absolute lack of contemporaneous documentation (despite claims by Christians to the contrary - and it gets pretty tedious to always hear 'but Josephus . . .' who was not a contemporary, even if we were to pretend the references were not interpolations) of Jesus leads me to adopt the null hypothesis - that the Jesus of the bible is a myth, until evidence is presented to convince me otherwise. To be clear, I am not saying that I am certain their was no Jesus. I am saying that I have not been given a good reason to believe their was. And, based on the fact that the arguments presented are so often fallacious, I suspect there is no good evidence.
Lastly, why should I buy your book? it seems that every Christian apologist makes the same arguments with some minor variation - and they all seem to say they have something new. Then, when I open up the book or listen to the argument it is just a slight variation on the previous arguments. You say you have something different. But, I've heard that a million times. There comes a point in time where my opinion is that even if there is a new argument, my experience tells me it will be another easily refuted argument.
Is whining like a little girl and calling people who point your utter bullshit as "bigots' all you have? Of course it is, since you have NOTHING. And you wonder why people think you're an idiot
Unsupported except by the evidence. But feel free to do what no one has done for 2,000 years - come up with evidence he existed.
Jim so is it your claim that for 2000 years no historian anywhere has provided evidence Jesus existed?
Care to site the "evidence" which shows Jesus did not exist.
I never saw him make that claim.
are to site the "evidence" which shows Jesus did not exist.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't historians usually work in the opposite way?
your reasoning is pathetic, for 2000 years no one has given evidence he didn't exist that's it, we don't have to prove he existed that's accepted fact among historians,
we don't have to prove he existed that's accepted fact among historians,
What poor excuse for historians just accept things on face value?
Now, where did Jim make that straw man claim? Where?
You don't understand how historians work. It's also a matter of argumentation, you have the burden of proof because you seek to over turn accepted fact. you must show me a reason not to take it on face value,
this is what mythers do, They can't stand up to real scholarship so they make up their own phony standards that are designed to protect their argument from silence.
I think you are wrong. The claim being made is that Jesus exists. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. It doesn't matter how long it has been believed. For it to be an accepted fact means there must be evidence. If it is so well attested, please provide that evidence. Again, to be clear, I am not saying he did or he did not exist. I am asking for the evidence that he did exist. I am not trying to overturn accepted fact. I am asking why it is accepted. That is not adopting the burden of proof, it is asking for the evidence that supports the claim that Jesus of the bible was a real person.
However, as you are pointing out that those who disagree with you are making an argument from silence, that seems to be a concession that evidence is lacking. Therefore, it is not a fallacy in this case. That suggests to me that you are simply trying to shift the burden of proof, and are aware that you are doing that.
You don't understand how historians work
Yes I do.....
you have the burden of proof because you seek to over turn accepted fact
.....they don't just 'accept' things as fact.
you must show me a reason not to take it on face value,
Again, that's not how anything,/i> works for the non-credulous.
There is strong academic support for both a mythological Jesus, for example Richard Carrier, and there is support for there being a real, underlying, individual on which the person we now refer to as Jesus is based (for example, Bart Ehrman). Neither side is regarded as being seriously cranky in their views.
Personally I don't think it matters. It's highly unlikely that the myth vs real is ever going to be settled to a high level of probability, but nor does it matter. There is little doubt in the minds of most that pretty well none of the events ascribed to Jesus took place, that there were never any miracles, and no divinity attaching.
I am sorry that you are taken in by Carrier's petulant childish act. He has nothing,his arguments are crap. you are going by the view in the new atheist movement, real historians think carrier is an idiot, New atheism has it's own academia.
There's a cultural tradition in western society that has lulled us into the almost immutable belief that Jesus existed. I think there's been an almost propaganda type desire to perpetuate it, led by Christians but fuelled by non-believers who don't want to overly offend; accommodationism if you like.
The possibility of Jesus being entirely mythical is finally being viewed seriously. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to offer an opinion, but I can say absolutely that Carrier is a serious academic, (he does sometimes appear petulant and childish in his social networking, I'd agree), who is peer reviewed, and cannot be dismissed lightly.
that is nonsense. When I tried to get the chair of my doctoral committee and the pro I TAed for to comment on Doherty they called him an idiot and said you can't do history that way. They were atheists and it was a secular program University of Texas.
If you study the 19th century figures like Bauer you might see why real historians have soured on mytherism. Essentially all myther argument require conspiracy theories to work.
You may describe it as nonsense if you wish. However, whilst I'm not able to get into detailed discussion on the point as to the historicity of Jesus, I think it's safe to say that all the evidence is limited. There is no first hand testimony, and what there is seems to have been documented years after the purported events. It'd be rather like me now writing a history of the First World War based on the few things my grandfather, who's been dead for 40 years, told me.
Maybe Jesus actually existed, and maybe he didn't. It's not much on which to base your life!
If you insist.
Rabbi: Did Jesus actually exist? http://freethoughtnation.co...
Jesus never existed http://redd.it/2pyjqe
The Fable of the Christ https://www.secularhumanism...
-- 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not
Top 10 Reasons Jesus Christ Never Existed http://www.listland.com/top...
Jesus never existed site http://www.jesusneverexiste...
5 reasons to suspect that Jesus never existed http://www.alternet.org/bel...http://churchandstate.org.u...http://www.salon.com/2014/0...
Did Jesus Really Exist? by Mark Thomas http://www.godlessgeeks.com...
Did a Historical Jesus Exist? By Jim Walker http://www.nobeliefs.com/ex...
Debunking Jesus: A Reading List http://newsprintpoetry.blog...
The Jesus Birther Movement http://jesusbirthermovement...
Did Jesus Exist or Is It All a Myth? http://hubpages.com/religio...
Jesus Who? The Historical Record Gives No Clue http://hubpages.com/religio...
The Mythic Origins of Christianity: True or False? http://hubpages.com/religio...
Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’ https://theconversation.com...
Did historical Jesus really exist? https://www.washingtonpost.... -- By Raphael Lataster, a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of *There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.*
Demolishing the historicity of Jesus – A History http://churchandstate.org.u...
Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ http://www.rationalrevoluti... - R G Price of Rational Revolution
The Christ by John E. Remsberg http://www.gutenberg.org/eb...
Video series https://www.youtube.com/pla...
POCM Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth http://pocm.info/
Demolishing the Messiah Myth http://communityvoiceradio....
PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS http://mama.indstate.edu/us... -- A very long and detailed essay.
The Bible Geek - Webcast - Dr. Robert M. Price http://www.robertmprice.min...
Official Home Page of Robert M. Price http://www.robertmprice.min...
The Historical Evidence For Jesus. http://rosarubicondior.blog...
that is not impressive you are multiplying crap. not wot hi reading, you have no positive fact that disproves Jesus' coexistence, no example of anyone saying hie didn't exist, not in the day. all myther arguments are argument from silence,.
New Testament is predicated upon people who knew Jesus and knew his family,
o yes Robert M.Price is not worth reading, hie';s nothing but an atheist who got a bible degree so he he could bad mouth God. His alleged scholarship is not impressive.
I must pop over to Scotland and watch Harry Potter playing Quidditch.
After all, it's in a book so it must all be true.
the problem with that kind of childish mockery is Christianity is believed by major thinkers such as Whitehead and Kant and Harry potter isn't, so mot analogous, makes you look ignorant,
> major thinkers such as Whitehead and Kant
Whitehead and Kant? Seriously? You're planting tomatoes in the desert there.
those are atheist sources, Those are not scholars they are not academics not real historians, secular humanism source says:God on trial" real objective, real scholars don't that
here's the evidence I would advance. i am open to debating you.
"An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][nb 6]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[nb 8]"
OoopsI was talking about God,. Jesus existed I've already proven that, Read by debate with Bowen,
> Jesus existed I've already proven that,
And he rode around on "My Little Pony".
cute, of course you refused to read my debate with Bradley because you are so sure you are right you don't need to consider evidence right? yu want to pretend to a scholarship you don't possess and you are just living in a lite fantasy world of hatred,
When you can write English it might be less painful to read your rants. But I doubt it.
when you can think past the third grade i'll explain to you how ignorant you are