No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_GoodK

Re: No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

Post by _GoodK »

Nevo wrote:
GoodK wrote:You say they all accept his existence? Is not denying the same thing as accepting his existence?

Maybe not. But in any case Bultmann, Lüdemann, and Mack all accept that Jesus existed, so they don't belong on your list.


While I'm not really bothered by taking four people off my list of 65 plus, but do you mind sharing how you know they all accept Jesus existed.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

While I'm not really bothered by taking four people off my list of 65 plus, but do you mind sharing how you know they all accept Jesus existed.


That's interesting.

Weren't you the one who was supposed to show us how they all rejected the existence of Jesus?

Heck, if we can just throw out names and expect people to verify them for us, maybe I should try it too.

Here is a list of historians who accept the existence of Jesus:


1600 - 1700's

Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire)

Count Constantine Volney

Edward Evanson,

Charles François Dupuis

Thomas Paine


1800's

Robert Taylor

Godfrey Higgins

Bruno Bauer

Allard Pierson

Bronson C. Keeler

Abraham Dirk Loman

Thomas William Doane

Samuel Adrianus Naber

Gerald Massey

Edwin Johnson

Rudolf Steck


1900's - 2000

Thomas Whittaker

Albert Kalthoff

Gerardus Bolland

Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian

John E. Remsburg

Arthur Drews

John Robertson

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga

Edward Carpenter

Rudolf Bultmann

James Frazer

P. L. Couchoud

Georg Brandes

Joseph Wheless

Henri Delafosse

L. Gordon Rylands

Edouard Dujardin

John J. Jackson

Alvin Boyd Kuhn

Herbert Cutner

Georges Las Vergnas

Georges Ory

Guy Fau

Max Rieser

Abelard Reuchlin

Hermann Detering

Gary Courtney

Michael Kalopoulos

Gerd Lüdemann

Alvar Ellegard

D. Murdock (a.k.a. 'Acharya S')

Earl Doherty

Timothy Freke

Peter Gandy

Harold Liedner

Robert Price

Hal Childs

Michael Hoffman

Burton Mack

Luigi Cascioli

Frank R. Zindler

Daniel Unterbrink

Tom Harpur

Francesco Carotta

Joseph Atwill

Michel Onfray

Kenneth Humphreys

Jay Raskin

Thomas L. Thompson
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

A Question of Analysis for GoodK

Post by _JAK »

GoodK wrote:
marg wrote:Where did you get that list from GoodK?

Also did you notice Ehrmans' comment in the debate between him and Craig that most scholars today dealing with the scholarship of Jesus are not historians and are religious. I'm too lazy to get his exact words. No wonder in scholar's writings addressing Jesus there is an automatic assumption he existed.


Yes I think I did see that, actually Nevo quoted his exact words, I believe, in the now dead Evidence for Jesus thread.

Ehrman was saying it is a theological issue, not a historical one - I think he was speaking specifically of the Resurrection, but I am too lazy to go through it again right now too. Such a long text to read on a computer screen...


Historians with neutral perspective who also understand modern science/physics, would be unlikely to support any of the miracle claims made for Jesus by the pen of those who never saw a Jesus, never heard a Jesus, and who relied on story-telling for decades prior to the authoring of specifics and direct quotations which they attributed to a Jesus.

Any individuals who are regarded as “Christian historians” lack a neutral perspective, hence, they lack objectivity.

Certainly Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was an intellectual of his time and not that far removed from our time as we think in terms of 2,000 years.

Thomas Jefferson in the cited reference was hardly a supporter of Christianity contrary to what many Christian fundamentalists believe today.

He appeared to recognize the invention of God as he uses the word “his” in the first line of this quotation to the Danbury Baptist Association Jan. 1, 1802.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

GoodK,

What do you make of the regressive mentality today as many wish to impose their religious fundamentalism in schools and in law?

Of course Jefferson was intent on the separation of church and state for good reason. He, along with others of his time and in positions to set the tone for a new nation, clearly recognized the dangers of religion.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Thomas Paine on Religion

Post by _JAK »

Thomas Paine on religion

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Is it not a species of blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion, when we see in it such contradictions and absurdities.
Thomas Paine


It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.
Thomas Paine

It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
Thomas Paine

Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
Thomas Paine

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.
Thomas Paine


That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.
Thomas Paine

The Vatican is a dagger in the heart of Italy.
Thomas Paine


There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice.
Thomas Paine
==

These are a few pertinent to Thomas Paine’s views on religion.


JAK
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

Post by _Nevo »

GoodK wrote:
Nevo wrote:
GoodK wrote:You say they all accept his existence? Is not denying the same thing as accepting his existence?

Maybe not. But in any case Bultmann, Lüdemann, and Mack all accept that Jesus existed, so they don't belong on your list.


While I'm not really bothered by taking four people off my list of 65 plus, but do you mind sharing how you know they all accept Jesus existed.

I've actually read stuff they've written.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

A few things...

First of all, JAK doesn't seem to understand that nobody is objective, and this includes the slew of atheist historians whose views he would welcome with his own subjective enthusiasm. The fact that non-Christian historians accept the existence of Jesus flies in the face of his suggestion that the general consensus affirming the historicity of Jesus, is dictated by religious bias.

Secondly, it has not been demonstrated that Thomas Paine rejected the historicity of Jesus. He was a deist, and so was Thomas Jefferson. This puts them completely at odds with the atheists on this forum, so I find it somewhat amusing when they try to suggest these men were reasonable and intelligent only when it comes to their view of Christianity. The Christ mythers seem to be confused when they find prominent historical figures bad mouthing Christianity. They seem to think this means they rejected the existence of Jesus. It is a non sequitur. Thomas Jefferson was a deist who complained because the true teachings of Jesus had been corrupted. Thomas Paine did not extend his criticisms of Christianity, to Christ himself.

And finally, JAK doesn't have a minimal understanding of Jefferson's "separation" clause. It is a common misunderstanding that has allowed the legal system to place unconstitutional restrictions everywhere, all in the name of secularism (in a sense Jefferson never agreed with). Public schools do not teach "religious fundamentalism" and nobody is trying to change that. This is just more unwarranted alarmist fear mongering.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Here we see JAK planting another one of his seeds of derailment.

Of course this thread is not about "Thomas Paine's view on religion." JAK seems to make this the theme of every thread he's in, prepared to send out the same "sources" that have been dealt with on all of his threads.

The issue is whether Jesus existed. It seems Thomas Paine didn't deny that.

GoodK, are you serious? You listed Freke, Gandy and Doherty again!

Why?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

Post by _JAK »

GoodK wrote:
Nevo wrote:
GoodK wrote:You say they all accept his existence? Is not denying the same thing as accepting his existence?

Maybe not. But in any case Bultmann, Lüdemann, and Mack all accept that Jesus existed, so they don't belong on your list.


While I'm not really bothered by taking four people off my list of 65 plus, but do you mind sharing how you know they all accept Jesus existed.


GoodK,

What people mean by the phrase “Jesus existed” is not necessarily the same. I’m not disagreeing with you or challenging here. But some perceive that someone or perhaps a composite of several individuals were synthesized biblically to make a story.

That is, your point regarding an actual, literal, accurately depicted historical figure by all rational analysis is correct. That biblical scripts were constructed/assembled by the same choir makes them lacking in objectivity. So what’s true (as it were) is that we have a story. The story is part of history if accuracy of story (stories of conflicting statement) is not.

Again, I suggest that the phrase “historical Jesus” is not interpreted in exactly the same way by different people who use that phrase. Likewise, “evidence for Jesus” has similar problematic issues. If one thinks of fragments of an individual, that’s quite different than if one considers an entire package.

It seems to me that much ambiguity prevails today among those who are engaged in the battle for Jesus. Agnostics don’t care much or at all.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Who listed Thomas Paine? Dart listed him

Post by _JAK »

dartagnan wrote:Here we see JAK planting another one of his seeds of derailment.

Of course this thread is not about "Thomas Paine's view on religion." JAK seems to make this the theme of every thread he's in, prepared to send out the same "sources" that have been dealt with on all of his threads.

The issue is whether Jesus existed. It seems Thomas Paine didn't deny that.

GoodK, are you serious? You listed Freke, Gandy and Doherty again!

Why?


Dart listed Thomas Paine as pro Christian. He was not.

JAK
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

dartagnan wrote:
While I'm not really bothered by taking four people off my list of 65 plus, but do you mind sharing how you know they all accept Jesus existed.


That's interesting.

Weren't you the one who was supposed to show us how they all rejected the existence of Jesus?

Heck, if we can just throw out names and expect people to verify them for us, maybe I should try it too.

Here is a list of historians who accept the existence of Jesus:


1600 - 1700's

Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire)

Count Constantine Volney

Edward Evanson,

Charles François Dupuis

Thomas Paine


1800's

Robert Taylor

Godfrey Higgins

Bruno Bauer

Allard Pierson

Bronson C. Keeler

Abraham Dirk Loman

Thomas William Doane

Samuel Adrianus Naber

Gerald Massey

Edwin Johnson

Rudolf Steck


1900's - 2000

Thomas Whittaker

Albert Kalthoff

Gerardus Bolland

Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian

John E. Remsburg

Arthur Drews

John Robertson

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga

Edward Carpenter

Rudolf Bultmann

James Frazer

P. L. Couchoud

Georg Brandes

Joseph Wheless

Henri Delafosse

L. Gordon Rylands

Edouard Dujardin

John J. Jackson

Alvin Boyd Kuhn

Herbert Cutner

Georges Las Vergnas

Georges Ory

Guy Fau

Max Rieser

Abelard Reuchlin

Hermann Detering

Gary Courtney

Michael Kalopoulos

Gerd Lüdemann

Alvar Ellegard

D. Murdock (a.k.a. 'Acharya S')

Earl Doherty

Timothy Freke

Peter Gandy

Harold Liedner

Robert Price

Hal Childs

Michael Hoffman

Burton Mack

Luigi Cascioli

Frank R. Zindler

Daniel Unterbrink

Tom Harpur

Francesco Carotta

Joseph Atwill

Michel Onfray

Kenneth Humphreys

Jay Raskin

Thomas L. Thompson


Kevin,

Some of us here may have a lot of free time on our hands, but I don't have time to summarize 65 different names.

I provided a link, check it out for yourself.
Post Reply