No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_dartagnan]

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

Although JAK has spent the last week rubbing the egg off of his face, he has decided to grace us with his presence with another bit of comedy. What he says above is demonstrably false. I never "listed Thomas Paine as pro Christian."

Now is that something funny, or just another outrageous lie?

You decide.

(Expect marg to present a twenty page analysis on how I really "implied" Paine was "pro Christian.")

And while JAK's comment regarding the semantic ambiguity of a "historical Jesus" echoes a tone of sensibility, don't think for a second he's consistent. After all, he's the same guy who said,

"The fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was a historical Jesus."

Of course he has not shown that "nothing" was written until then. He simply operates on the fallacious logic that non-existent evidence is evidence, or in JAK's words, "strong evidence" for non-existence. Of course there were writings during that time. They simply didn't survive. And he still hasn't come to grips that we have "nothing" written within several centuries of Alexander the Great, exists either. But real historians do not count this as evidence against the existence of Alexander anymore than it is counted against the existence of Jesus.

[_dartagnan]

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.

I have a lot of time on my hands, which makes all the more frustrating when posters suggest I should have to do their work for them in order to disprove their bald assertions.

You're making claims and expecting to lay the blame for inaccuracy on whatever website you used?

Then I suggest you drop the JAK method and engage in some real research. Nothing is lazier than dropping hyperlinks, and it seriously damages your credibility as a serious poster. It is impossible to take you seriously anymore.

I looked at the website and I see it doesn't provide a citation from Paine, saying he rejected the existence of Jesus. He said he rejected all organized religion, including Christianity. Surely you're able to see there is a difference here, and that Paine is listed in your post without justification.

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

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.

Well, I checked it out and it doesn't up back your claim:

Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) (1694-1778) The most influential figure of the Enlightenment was educated at a Jesuit college yet concluded, "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world ... The true God cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough." Imprisoned, exiled, his works banned and burned, Voltaire's great popularity in revolutionary France assured him a final resting place in the Pantheon in Paris. Religious extremists stole his remains and dumped them in a garbage heap.

Voltaire didn't like Catholicism. But where is the denial of Jesus' existence. It's not in this quote.

[_dartagnan]

Doesn't that just go to show how incompetent the author of that article really is?

Citations are provided in the article that actually undermine the thesis of the article itself.

Can you believe Ralph Waldo Emerson is included?

[_GoodK]

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.

I have a lot of time on my hands, which makes all the more frustrating when posters suggest I should have to do their work for them in order to disprove their bald assertions.

You're making claims and expecting to lay the blame for inaccuracy on whatever website you used?

Then I suggest you drop the JAK method and engage in some real research. Nothing is lazier than dropping hyperlinks, and it seriously damages your credibility as a serious poster. It is impossible to take you seriously anymore.

I looked at the website and I see it doesn't provide a citation from Paine, saying he rejected the existence of Jesus. He said he rejected all organized religion, including Christianity. Surely you're able to see there is a difference here, and that Paine is listed in your post without justification.

That is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I consider you a serious poster and appreciate your input.

I'm not sure I want to be considered a serious poster, but thanks anyways. I'd rather work on getting things published in the real world, rather than gaining your or other members of this second life's stamp of approval.

I am only 23 years old, so perhaps in 10 years or so I will be able to catch up to the oracles of this board.
In the mean time, I rely on what little resources I have at my disposal.

To be clear, I am not a Thomas Paine expert, nor am I an expert on historians. Does that disqualify me from the discussion? If so, I'll sit off to the side and watch the pro's duke it out.

I do hope we can keep this discussion civil for the time being, but here are a few quotes that make me doubt Paine believed in the historical Jesus:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of ... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

"I detest the Bible as I detest everything that is cruel."

"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."

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

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

"My mind is my own church."

"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."

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

But who knows, too bad he isn't around to speak for himself.

[_richardMdBorn]

David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Lutheran vicar-turned-scholar skilfully exposed gospel miracles as myth and in the process reduced Jesus to a man. It cost him his career.

Where's the denial of Jesus' existence in this quote?

[_GoodK]

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world ... The true God cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough." Imprisoned, exiled, his works banned and burned, Voltaire's great popularity in revolutionary France assured him a final resting place in the Pantheon in Paris. Religious extremists stole his remains and dumped them in a garbage heap.

Voltaire didn't like Catholicism. But where is the denial of Jesus' existence. It's not in this quote.[/quote]

I didn't know that each of these men would have to say, verbatim, "I deny the existence of Jesus" for them to count.

[_richardMdBorn]

I do hope we can keep this discussion civil for the time being, but here are a few quotes that make me doubt Paine believed in the historical Jesus:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of ... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

"I detest the Bible as I detest everything that is cruel."

"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."

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

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

"My mind is my own church."

"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."

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

But who knows, too bad he isn't around to speak for himself.

There's no denial of Jesus' existence in these quotes. Deists in general did not deny Jesus' existence. They considered him to be a good man whose teachings had been distorted. The correct teachings of Jesus just happened to coincide with their own thoughts.

[_richardMdBorn]

I didn't know that each of these men would have to say, verbatim, "I deny the existence of Jesus" for them to count.

But you started out with that claim. If you asserted that they didn't like organized religion, I would agree with you. But that's not the same thing as denying Jesus' existence. And your source link does not assert that this list of people denied Jesus' existence. It mentions destroying the Jesus myth. That's NOT the same thing as the existence of Jesus. I'm used to evaluating source documents (see my article http://www.thespacereview.com/article/626/1). I suggest that you be a bit more careful in your claims.

[_GoodK]

David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Lutheran vicar-turned-scholar skilfully exposed gospel miracles as myth and in the process reduced Jesus to a man. It cost him his career.

Where's the denial of Jesus' existence in this quote?

Richard,

I am working on a response to this. Give me some time. I'm almost certain Strauss denied the existence of a historical Jesus.