Evidence for Jesus

Post by **_dartagnan** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:55 pm

the claim that there are no historians who doubt the existence of Jesus is easily refuted

Who made that claim?

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:04 pm

dartagnan wrote:
the claim that there are no historians who doubt the existence of Jesus is easily refuted

Who made that claim?

Beats me.

Post by **_Nevo** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:22 am

rcrocket wrote:Nonetheless, the claim that there are no historians who doubt the existence of Jesus is easily refuted. Mack is just one of many. I think his analysis of the "Q" shows he doesn't really believe.

But Mack isn't one of those "who doubt the existence of Jesus." And, no, there aren't "many" historians--especially in the relevant fields of classics and New Testament studies--who seriously question this. The number of those who do is negligible--and none are taken seriously (John Marco Allegro anyone?).

Post by **_dartagnan** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:33 am

OK, anyone else want to give it a shot?

It is hard to imagine that with the internet at our disposal, nobody can provide a list of historians who reject the historicity of Jesus.

By the way, does anyone know why Mormons are inclined to argue with atheists against the evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

I do.

Post by **_richardMdBorn** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:52 am

liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note)Moved based on a more "Terrestrial feel". Also moved based on the request of several participants in the thread. PM me if you have any questions. I left a Shadow link in Celestial. Liz

I first posted this thread in Terrestrial but didn't like the tone of a post there and asked that it be moved to Celestial. I think that my wishes should have some weight in a thread I started.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:53 am

Mack. In "Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth," he concludes that his work need not set forth the proofs for a historical Jesus. (46.) He says there are none, at least those which "agree to the level of 'historical' memory. (46). Reading Mack's various works, I conclude that he doesn't care one way or the other about a historical Jesus; his expertise is in proving the mythology of Christ; he doesn't need to disprove Christ's existence. One doesn't need to disprove the existence of Zeus to prove that he is a myth.

The various schools of thought which deny the historicity of Jesus, at least according to Durant: Bruno Bauer, Ernest Renan, the "Dutch" school of Pierson, Naber * Matthas. Arthur Drews. W.B. Smith. J.M. Robertson.

Add to that list my own personal opinion of A.N. Wilson, Robert Lane Fox and even Elaine Pagels. Pagels hedges her terms when she discusses historicity. Mind you, these scholars also slip into language evincing a belief in the life of Jesus when they, like Mack, recite facts from Jesus' life. But, it is nothing more than reciting the life of Achilles.

Others: Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Gerald Massey: "Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person." The latter from an internet site: http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm.

Post by **_richardMdBorn** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:54 am

dartagnan wrote:OK, anyone else want to give it a shot?

It is hard to imagine that with the internet at our disposal, nobody can provide a list of historians who reject the historicity of Jesus.

By the way, does anyone know why Mormons are inclined to argue with atheists against the evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

I do.

I think that I do too.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:56 am

dartagnan wrote:OK, anyone else want to give it a shot?

It is hard to imagine that with the internet at our disposal, nobody can provide a list of historians who reject the historicity of Jesus.

By the way, does anyone know why Mormons are inclined to argue with atheists against the evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

I do.

What Mormons are those?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:02 am

richardMdBorn wrote:
liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note)Moved based on a more "Terrestrial feel". Also moved based on the request of several participants in the thread. PM me if you have any questions. I left a Shadow link in Celestial. Liz
I first posted this thread in Terrestrial but didn't like the tone of a post there and asked that it be moved to Celestial. I think that my wishes should have some weight in a thread I started.

richard,

What are your wishes in this situation?

Post by **_richardMdBorn** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:16 am

Jersey Girl wrote:
richardMdBorn wrote:
liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note)Moved based on a more "Terrestrial feel". Also moved based on the request of several participants in the thread. PM me if you have any questions. I left a Shadow link in Celestial. Liz
I first posted this thread in Terrestrial but didn't like the tone of a post there and asked that it be moved to Celestial. I think that my wishes should have some weight in a thread I started.

richard,

What are your wishes in this situation?

I would prefer that it stay in Celestial and violations be edited out of it from this point forward.