Evidence for Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Why would an historian categorically claim that Jesus never existed? I suspect many question it based upon the lack of evidence, but why do they need to make a definitive statement? That would seem to be a bit like proving the negative.

Are there many / any historians that accept the divine, resurrected Christ based upon what history has yielded?

Hello TAK,

I think that one can choose to rule out the historicity of Jesus without it falling into the "proving the negative" category. I doubt that historians are interested in supernatural claims. I would have liked to see some discussions of actual perspectives from historians on this thread. GoodK asked for pro-historicity information from historians and dart asked for information anti-historicity information from historians. It seems to me that either the efforts haven't been made to supply those or they have failed. I have to say that I did search online for historians who challenge the historical Jesus and came up with just one. Just now, I can't recall the persons name but they did have a degree in ancient history.

Don't know if that counts or if it counts without a name!

[_Jersey Girl]

It was Earl Doherty. Some information is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

[_Nevo]

GoodK asked for pro-historicity information from historians and dart asked for information anti-historicity information from historians. It seems to me that either the efforts haven't been made to supply those or they have failed. I have to say that I did search online for historians who challenge the historical Jesus and came up with just one.

It should be noted that Earl Doherty is not a professional historian and has no academic training at all in New Testament studies, so his opinion on the historicity of Jesus carries very little weight. He does not qualify as "a historian who rejects the historicity of Jesus."

Sure, there are a handful of people who have written books claiming that Jesus didn't exist, and some of them have bachelor's degrees in history, but they are almost totally ignored. Very few--if any--Jesus scholars take their antiquated Christ-Myth arguments seriously (the maverick Robert M. Price being perhaps the only one).

In contrast, here is the assessment of an actual historian of Christian origins:

We know that the New Testament lacks witnesses to the resurrection and that paradoxically this tells us that they are not inventing the story, because every self-respecting god of the first century had a much more glorious end that was witnessed by all the most important people. These things prove that there was a Jesus, even from a literature we admit was written entirely by people devoted to him and convinced that he was the most important person ever to have lived and the basis of their salvation.

-- Alan F. Segal, "'How I Stopped Worrying about Mel Gibson and Learned to Love the Quest for the Historical Jesus': A Review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2, no. 2 (2004): 207.

[_marg]

As a result of the discussion in the off-topic forum I reviewed this thread. I have 2 points to make here. Just about every post of yours Kevin in this thread is ad hominal. Just about every single one. You may not be aware but in the Celestial people are supposed to attempt to argue on point, not attack other participants.

Secondly apparently this thread broke down and was moved because you complained that JAK had called you a liar. Since this is over something I said I will address it here in this thread.

Let’s look at your words, your argument and whether or not you implied .."All historians accept that Jesus existed". That is the argument I understood you to be making.

You said quote: “Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.”

One does not need to use the word “all” to take it as a given it is implied. When you say "Historians accept"…the intended implication although not explicitly stated is “all historians”

GoodK wrote: Certainly some historians accept Jesus, but there are others who do not, precisely because there is no historical evidence.

Your response: This is not true. It is silly to say only "some" historians accept this. Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries. Only recently have atheists tried to argue the untenable by saying he never really existed. If you find historians who reject the historicity of Jesus, then they are the ones on the fringe, not vice versa.

Jesus is accepted as historical.

Note your last sentence with the emphasis on “is”. When GoodK argues "some"…you don’t acknowledge “some”. You say "if you can find some"..but then you go on to discount any if they are found. So again..your point is that only historians who are recognized as credible historians accept Jesus’s existence any who don't accept should be discounted. The net result is that you are implying "all historian accept Jesus's existence


Kevin: When are you guys going to come to grips with the fact that historians accept the existence of Christ? Shouldn't historians have a better idea of what constitutes real history? Or should we leave it up to the hate bloggers who are experts in rhetoric?

Again one doesn’t need to use the word “all” to take from the context the implication. The implication is that “all historians accept..without exception.

Kevin: It isn't ad hominem to reiterate that nobody here has come to grips with the fact that historians acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

Once again the same thing, you do not acknowledge that only the vast majority you state “historians acknowledge” with the implication of “all”.


You write: It doesn't matter if I used the word virtually.

What matters is that I didn't use the word all.

Isn't that what I'm accused of saying?

I know I have been careful in referring to historians, atheists, etc, and "virtually" has been a qualifier I have used in the past. If it doesn't exist in this discussion, then fine, I misspoke. But my point still stands in that I am careful not to say all historians. Marg's accusation is false, and JAK's longwinded attempt to make this charge credible is nothing short of amazing. But it kinda gives you a sense of what's really important to him here, and the facts have nothing to do with it.

The issue here is not whether you said the word “all” it is what you implied. You are making it sound like I completely misrepresented your argument. Your argument is not that there are any historians who do not accept Jesus’s existence …your implied argument which you have repeated a number of times is that “historian accept Jesus existed…with the implication of all attached to those words. Your inflammatory use of words that I’m accusing you..sounds as if I’m completely and intentionally misrepresenting you which is not the case. It is just another of your fallacious ad hominal attacks done subtlely.

JAKwrites: : GoodK was correct in the use of the word “some” with regard to “historians.” You are inconsistent in your claims.

Your response: She said there were "some" who rejected the historicty of Jesus, yet neither of you have managed to produce "some."

But I never said all historians accept this. I believe they probably do, but I was careful never to make that assertion. What I said is that it is the overwhelming consensus and virtually all historians aaccept it.

So here you acknowledge your belief is that all historians accept Jesus existence so why the denial that this isn’t your position. Why the shift to personal attack that someone should say it is your position? Why say I’m accusing you of this, when in fact this is your belief and implied consistent argument. And by the way your repeated request for someone to supply a historian who doesn’t accept Jesus’s existence is another bit of evidence that that it is in fact your position, your argument.

Dart to JAK: So why are you lying here? To detract from the fact that you still can't muster a single reputable historian that rejects the historicity of Jesus?

How do you deal with the fact that historians reject your argument that Jesus never existed? This isn't too much to ask. You never address it.

Besides the ad hominals you are once again acknowledging your argument and belief that all historians accept Jesus’s existence. So why the denial?

Kevin: Christianity has known the details don't always match. And this is only evidence for their authenticity since that is precisely what one would expect from different people writing about the same experiences. But this doesn't mean it doesn't constitute reliable evidence that Jesus existed. Of course it does. Historians don't follw your illogic, and for good reason too.

Once again Kevin the implication you give is that all historians accept Jesus. Whether you use the word “all” or not is not the main point.

I was correct in pointing out that your argument is that “all historians”, I don’t know why you made a big deal out of this. While at times you may not have used that word the implication was there.

JAK was correct that your denial of this was not truthful. You continued to argue over the minutia, for whatever reason focusing on the word “all” as if that wasn’t what you meant.

The other reason for JAK pointing this denial of what was said , is that within this very discussion with words there to read, what someone said is difficult to agree upon. And this is with the words there, where people can go back and look and it was happening within minutes, hours days, not decades. So he was correct on that as well.


You ignored my point, my focus was not on the word “all” never was…you shifted it to that. I wrote: What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true. Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

I don’t think you appreciate the subtle difference. Historian are not in the business of saying what didn’t happen. All they can do is relate what evidence exists and what that evidence says. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily expressing an opinion on whether or not something actually happened. In the history book I have, anything relating to what is contained in the Bible is referred to as mythhistory. In other words it is noted. But there is an acknowledged element of myth associated with it.



So once again Kevin let’s review this, this is how it started out and led to you asking for the thread to be moved to Terrestial because you apparently didn’t like the accusation from JAK that you weren’t being truthful.

You quoted a portion of my words and focused on the word “all” I wrote: “What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true.” You left out my main point. “Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.”

You responded with : “I didn't claim that. I said, "Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."

The history of Jesus is inconclusive as it is for many historical figures, but the historicity of Jesus is pretty much settled in scholarship. The only ones who even doubt it are the nutjob anti-religionists who have no formal training in history studies.

I'll ask again. Can you or JAK or GoodK name any reputable historians who reject the historicity of Jesus?”

So you shifted the argument onto an attack on me and what I said by focusing on the word “all”. And it continued from there, as if your argument never was what you in fact admitted you believe “that all historians accept Jesus and as if I made a gross inaccurate accusation against you.

And the only reason I can see for you wanting to move the thread to terrestialis so that you can escalate your ad homs even more, though that would be hard to do, given that just about every single post of yours in this thread is laced with a personal attack.

[_TAK]

Nevo:

It should be noted that Earl Doherty is not a professional historian and has no academic training at all in New Testament studies, so his opinion on the historicity of Jesus carries very little weight. He does not qualify as "a historian who rejects the historicity of Jesus."

Sure, there are a handful of people who have written books claiming that Jesus didn't exist, and some of them have bachelor's degrees in history, but they are almost totally ignored. Very few--if any--Jesus scholars take their antiquated Christ-Myth arguments seriously (the maverick Robert M. Price being perhaps the only one).

LOL .. and Bill Gate is not qualified to discuss computer science as he never finished college..

[_Nevo]

Let’s look at your words, your argument and whether or not you implied .."All historians accept that Jesus existed". That is the argument I understood you to be making.

You said quote: “Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.”

One does not need to use the word “all” to take it as a given it is implied. When you say "Historians accept"…the intended implication although not explicitly stated is “all historians”

Marg, you could avoid misunderstanding Kevin's arguments if you stopped inserted words that aren't there.

The Wikipedia article on the age of the earth states: "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years." Does this mean there are no exceptions? Is the statement no longer valid if a young earth creationist who happens to have a degree in geology claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

[_marg]

Let’s look at your words, your argument and whether or not you implied .."All historians accept that Jesus existed". That is the argument I understood you to be making.

You said quote: “Alexander the Great is accepted by historians as a real person. The same is true for Jesus. Historians accept his existence because there is historical evidence.”

One does not need to use the word “all” to take it as a given it is implied. When you say "Historians accept"…the intended implication although not explicitly stated is “all historians”

Marg, you could avoid misunderstanding Kevin's arguments if you stopped inserted words that aren't there.

The Wikipedia article on the age of the earth states: "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years." Does this mean there are no exceptions? Is the statement no longer valid if a young earth creationist who happens to have a degree in geology claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

I didn't misunderstand kevin's argument. My focus was never on the word "all" that was kevin's focus and denial of what I said he said. Had I been misrepresenting his argument grossly he'd have a point but I wasn't. He even admitted that he believes there are no historians who think Jesus didn't exist. And if there are any they should just be discounted.

His argument is that Jesus existed because historians say so. My focus and main point was not on the word "all" but that historians are not in the business of explicitly pointing out what didn't happen. As I said, in my history book Spodek puts the information having to do with the Bible including Jesus in a section called "mythhistory". He gives the limitation of the evidence and then presents that evidence as if Jesus existed. It's up the reader given the limitations to make that determination, he doesn't make the determination as a historian. This is particularly the case because of the limitations of the evidence for claims in the Bible. He would be negligent to do otherwise, to present the information in the Bible as if it is all completely reliable and accepted as fact. There are degrees of reliability of evidence. All evidence is not equal.

[_dartagnan]

apparently this thread broke down and was moved because you complained that JAK had called you a liar.

I made no "complaint." The mods said they had receved many PMs from other people yet I only sent one to Liz. She sent me a PM I hadn't responded to a week or so ago and I commented on this very briefly. All I did, upon reading JAK's uneducated and illicit attack on me, was to suggest they move the thread elsewhere since it wouldn't be long before it got out of hand. I wasn't complaining. I just said it was going to quickly deteriorate. And I was right. Throughout the rest of the day JAK had been bombarding us will all sorts of irrational defenses of your statement, insisting I was acting disingenuously by denying I made the claim.

And speaking of JAK's attack, why aren't you seeing that as the reason why the thread was moved? Don't answer, we already know why.

Let’s look at your words, your argument and whether or not you implied .."All historians accept that Jesus existed". That is the argument I understood you to be making.

I'm aware of that. You were wrong. This was demonstrated. Now you're trying to figure out a way not to be wrong? Good grief, woman.

One does not need to use the word “all” to take it as a given it is implied. When you say "Historians accept"…the intended implication although not explicitly stated is “all historians”

No it isn't, and Nevo rightly pointed this out. You must not read much if this is what you think. To say "humans are social creatures" is not to deny that some humans are anti-social. It is a way of speaking generally. There is nothing wrong with what I said. "All" is not implied. The problem entered when you said I made a "claim," which you are now trying to change as an implication. Implications and claims are not synonymous. This is what you said: "What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed."

I kindly pointed out that I never made such a claim. And now you're crying foul because you think you're being "attacked" because I won't defend something I never said.

Amazing.

Note your last sentence with the emphasis on “is”. When GoodK argues "some"…you don’t acknowledge “some”.

You're miscomprehending, yet again. The "some" refers to the historians who accept Jesus as history, not those who don't. To say "some" ignores the fact that virtually all are included. GoodK was making it sound like there were just as many historians who rejected the historicity of Jesus, as there are who accept it. The entire rant by JAK presumes he has historians on his side. I simply pointed out the fact that the "overwhelming majority" reject everything he is spewing. I never said all. I never implied all.

You say "if you can find some"..but then you go on to discount any if they are found.

But she didn't find "some." She found one, and was so desperate for names that she, by acident, even mentioned a historian who accepted the historicity of Jesus.

So again..your point is that only historians who are recognized as credible historians accept Jesus’s existence any who don't accept should be discounted. The net result is that you are implying "all historian accept Jesus's existence

No that isn't the "net result." You're getting desperate aren't you? You see, the reason why the celestial discussions deteriorate is because people like you refuse to admit ever being wrong. You spend days trying to figure out a way to wriggle your way out of this mess. I've left it alone, content with the fact that JAK embarrassed himself enough to leave. I was more annoyed with him, not you. I guess you feel responsible since it was your miscomprehension he was defending.

Again one doesn’t need to use the word “all” to take from the context the implication.

Well, it better say "all" if you want to say I made that "claim."

The implication is that “all historians accept..without exception.

Only to those with a comprehension deficiency. I cannot be faulted for whatever you choose to infer. People with straw man tendencies tend to infer just about anything that satisfies their need for straw. All I can do is point out that I never made that argument or that "claim."

The issue here is not whether you said the word “all” it is what you implied.

No, the issue is whether I made that "claim." You're now trying to shuffle out of your mess by trying to make it a matter of implication. But even here you have no leg to stand on. Nevo knew what I meant. Anyone who read through my posts knew what I meant. The people having issues is you and Jak.

You are making it sound like I completely misrepresented your argument.

All I said was "I didn't say that." How in the bejeezus is that "making it sound like I completely misrepresented your argument." And what "argument" was it anyway?

Your argument is not that there are any historians who do not accept Jesus’s existence …

You don't even seem to understand what the "argument" was. It was simply a request for GoodK, who assured us there were historians who rejected Jesus as history. I simply requested that she produce. So there was no "argument" involved at this point. I knew she was making assumptions without knowledge so I let her inability to meet the request, demonstrate that assumptions were driving her comments, not knowledge.

Your inflammatory use of words that I’m accusing you..sounds as if I’m completely and intentionally misrepresenting you which is not the case. It is just another of your fallacious ad hominal attacks done subtlely.

Anyone have a hanky? I'm gonna cry.

So here you acknowledge your belief is that all historians accept Jesus existence so why the denial that this isn’t your position.

So now you're shifting from the original "claim," to the "implication," and then "belief" and finally to "position"? This is hilarious.

I said I believe they "probably" do. That is not a statement of certainty so it just goes against everything you're doing here. Again, your failure to grasp the English language is something I'm supposed to compensate for? I think not. And since the only way I can defend myself from your attacks is to point out your sophomoric grasp of things, I cannot be faulted for being "uncelestial." This is why this thread needs to be elsewhere. You keep picking fights, and I am left with no choice but to give you what you deserve, because the nature of yoru attacks leave me with no other line of defense. SO go ahead and cry about ad hominems. That's your standard line of response.

Besides the ad hominals you are once again acknowledging your argument and belief that all historians accept Jesus’s existence. So why the denial?

Because that isn't my belief nor is it my argument. Why are you denying the fact that you said I "claimed" this, when in fact I didn't? Why are you still trying to salvage some sense of crdibility for your internet man? Do you realize how pathetic you're being right now?

My focus was never on the word "all" ...

But that one little word is the reason we're all here yapping about who said what! It is the reason JAK accused me of lying and you are accusing me of "denial," so don't insult all our intelligences by saying that the word "all" had no focus on your part. That one little word is the lynchpin for your entire whine. It makes all the difference in the world, and here you are still trying to suggest you were correct because you think I "implied" all. That is false. You now misrepresent my "claim," my "position" and my "belief." Anything else you want to misrepresent while the water is warm?

His argument is that Jesus existed because historians say so.

What the hell? I never said that either! I never "claimed" that, I never "implied" that, it isn't my "position" and I don't "believe" it. That would be a stupid argument to make. My point is that JAK is out of his gourd when he thinks he can teach the world of historians the true standards for history, simply because he knows how to peruse the whackjob articles by Christ-mythers he bumps into on the web.

[_GoodK]

There exists no derailment here, GoodK and no need to start a new thread. You used Bible contradictions as proof as that the New Testament is unreliable as Evidence for Jesus.

Holy smokes, did I really? Let's just look at what I said:

The New Testament can't even keep from contradicting itself, let alone be trusted as evidence.

Hmmm... care to revise your statement or edit it out? I also said this:

It is a dubious collection of early writings that contradict eachother, promote ideas that were popular at the time, and that don't have a clear author or date.

Here is a summary for you and everyone else:

First Jersey Girl wanted to see a list of historians that didn't write about Jesus even though they should have if the New Testament is correct in its claims, so I obliged.

No, that's not what I asked.

Really? Your little brother must have been using your computer then....

If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.

Yes, GoodK! Will you post their names and perhaps a link to their writings or mention of their writings?

Thank you!

Here is number 3:

Move this portion of the discussion to its own thread, contradictions of the New Testament.

You are free to make that request to a moderator, GoodK, however there is no derailment of topic here. You raised the issue of contradictions in the New Testament in order to support your position that the New Testament is unreliable as Evidence for Jesus. When you raise an issue in the context of a topical discussion such as this, you can expect someone to attempt to engage it, in this case me.

Are you not a moderator, or are you too busy beating on straw men, using ad hominems and red herrings?

[_dartagnan]

But the New Testament does constitute evidence. Your refusal to accept this is really of no consequence, because historians do.

You seem to be hypnotized by JAK's uneducated rant about how New Testament contradictions make it "unreliabe." This was the whole point to my comment about historians. Obviously historians do not follow that logic. Just because you keep asserting unreliability, doesn't make it so.

By the way, were you able to come up wih a list of historians who subscribe to JAK's theory?