No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_JAK]

The important point of GoodK’s comments is the fact that historians are not in agreement about the historicity of Jesus. And we necessarily include historians from all parts of the world – China, Russia, European countries, Africa. If primarily only individuals committed to some dogma of Christianity are considered historians, the distortion is self-evident.

And we know that even those dogma-bound Christian historians don’t agree about the details which are required for authentic history.

Links provided to Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were a part of my posts and as important as what I stated. By using a link, it’s possible to keep the writing on the forum shorter and still include the analysis or commentary from a source that is within our common denominator on the Internet.

GoodK is correct that “not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.” That’s the issue.

In addition there is wide disagreement about reliability of particulars found in the one primary source today for Christianity, the Bible.

That some book does not “deny” the existence of anything is only relevant in the prior claim of “existence.” And in that, there is wide disagreement as to just what “existence” means with regard to a character no one bothered to document at the time of his life, and which was converted to writing well after the alleged claims.

Acceptance as historical fact from verbal story-telling is unreliable history in any event. And in this particular case, it becomes a requirement for some believing pundits that they accept the defying of physics and the laws of science. Such pundits lack scholarship as they operate from in the box of unquestioning belief in biblical stories.

There is neutrality to be found in historical review of ancient times. That neutrality often clarifies that reliable, certain evidence is unavailable due to the erosion of time and lack of reliability of accounting.

Burden of proof lies with one who makes the assertion. No one has provided evidence that word for word record of what a Jesus was alleged to have said. That would be required to meet burden of proof for the claim.

Dart stated:
“it has not been demonstrated that Thomas Paine rejected the historicity of Jesus.”

The writings and statements on record from T. Paine are evidence that he rejected religion.

If one wishes to document that Thomas Paine believed in the historicity of Jesus, it is that person who is obligated to establish such a claim. It has not been established in these discussions.

The evidence of Thomas Paine’s views on religion can be reviewed at the website provided.

Nothing in those “Thomas Paine Quotes” remotely suggests support for an affirmative case that he held respect for “historicity of Jesus.”

It has never been challenged on this forum that “historicity of Jesus” is a mercurial notion. For example, if we allow the Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians each to pick their own “scholars” from within their groups, those “scholars” would have different views on the “historicity of Jesus.”

If we then add neutral scholars, those who have no commitment to any theological pattern of Christianity, we would have yet different and additional perspectives.

It confirms and extends the position of GoodK’s subject title “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

And even those who may argue for existence do so with serious differences about just what is historical and what is mythological.

The burden of proof for affirmative Jesus claims lies with those who make the claims. Second hand, third hand story telling does not establish reliable conclusion.

With the evolution of the Protestant Reformation, the certainty and dogmas surrounding biblical scripts have changed. Consider the many biblical translations present today and since the first print form of the Bible. They vary widely and add to the contradictions regarding the existence of Jesus as well as many other points of claim in the Bible.

“The Christ myth” is “untenable” (GoodK) in that there are multiple myths. There is not one only. That collection of Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians “scholars” too, would not agree. Otherwise those four denominations would be one denomination.

As we add to those the hundreds and hundreds of other Christian groups large and small, we find deviation on claims regarding Jesus myths and other biblical myths.

Add to that neutral and unbiased historical scholarship in which the study is not limited by religious doctrine and dogma, and we have even further skepticism regarding any particular claim regarding “existence” of a character. It’s a character about whom no one who wrote, ever saw. It’s a character about whom only stories were used as a basis for direct quotes and reports of conduct including claimed miracles.

If someone wishes to make a case that reliable note-taking was done at verbal expression of alleged Jesus at the time, such a person has the burden of proof to establish the claim. Absent evidence for a claim, the claim should be rejected.

The Christ myth is untenable as GoodK observed.

For it to have the stature of reliability, it would require evidence upon which skeptics and supporters alike could find agreement. Such evidence is not established.

Myths rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance is untenable.

JAK

[_JAK]

GoodK stated:

"I don't know about Deists in general. Blanket statements are hard to argue with and hard to defend.

I'll read through your posts a bit more carefully tomorrow. I have a day job as well."
+++

JAK:
Correct.

Deism like other terms which are inherently complex is difficult to address in general. The link demonstrates the complexity of it.

In that link, we find this:

“Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.”

Many of those regarded as founders of what has become the USA were insistent that religion be kept separate from government. They would generally have rejected claimed miracles of religion as the above quote demonstrates. Some were passionately opposed to religion and saw the dangers it posed particularly as it might be imposed by law, the law of a new nation. That they make reference to “God” does not suggest they were supporters of Christianity or any division of that religion. It was a general term applied in a different way than it is applied today by many Christians who have very specific agendas such as imposing by law their religious views on everyone.

Notice also, GoodK, the time frame for the prominence of Deism. (same source)

“Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in The United Kingdom, France and The United States of America, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one God. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism led to the development of other religious groups, particularly Unitarianism.”

In the link, there are multiple additional links for those interested in pursuing Deism. Early developers of the US government (the evolution of this from of democracy) were generally vague about their views. Evidence by their words strongly suggests that they were skeptical intellectuals regarding any truth by assertion. Yet they held strong views, and for reason, about how a government should be organized and made functional and practical.

While many Americans today like to claim our forefathers were strong Christians, that claim is bogus. Most were not. Some attended churches of the day. It was as politically correct as it is today. At the same time, people like Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and others were not into church work.

They were concerned that the dangers of religion be kept out of government as much as possible.

JAK

[_JAK]

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.

+++

JAK:

You might find some useful information HERE.

Since there are multiple links, you can go in various directions.

No one in these discussions (I may have missed it) has addressed just what is meant by “existence of Jesus.”

The primary source for claims is the Bible. Clearly those varied sources were biased and edited to speak as one voice, particularly in the New Testament. And yet a horizontal reading of even those accounts demonstrates CONTRADICTIONS.

New Testament Contradictions

Some Famous New Testament Forgeries

New Testament Problems

Sorry to give you overload since you have that “day job.”

While I gave you four links, they are related to the first one regarding D.F. Strauss.

They also support your topic “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

JAK

[_GoodK]

So far, less than 10% of the scholars I listed are in dispute.

We've only looked into 10% of the list. So another way of saying it is that 100% of those who have been researched, are in dispute.

How many more would be in dispute if someone had the time and resources to verify?

This is the problem with the JAK method. It produces more questions than answers, more skepticism than confidence and more heat than light.

Fine. Let's look into all of them. I'd rather address questions than swallow other people's assumptions without any inquiry. You said most historians accept the historical Jesus. You didn't provide a list. At least I did.

[_dartagnan]

The important point of GoodK’s comments is the fact that historians are not in agreement about the historicity of Jesus. And we necessarily include historians from all parts of the world – China, Russia, European countries, Africa. If primarily only individuals committed to some dogma of Christianity are considered historians, the distortion is self-evident.

Having been refuted on this nonsense several times, JAK continues to perpetuate the myth that only those historians "committed to some dogma of Christianity" are the ones considered to be real historians. This is one of his many irrelevant straw man attempts that won't stand the test of "skeptical review."

And we know that even those dogma-bound Christian historians don’t agree about the details which are required for authentic history.

This is just another bait and switch. The issue is not the "details" and JAK is demonstrating his lack of familiarity with the scholarship if he thinks agreement on details is "required for "authentic history." This is nothing more than a repackaged form of the same nonsensical argument presented by the anti-Jesus websites, written by nonhistorians

Links provided to Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were a part of my posts and as important as what I stated.

None of which provide any evidence that either of these great men rejected the historicity of Jesus.

By using a link, it’s possible to keep the writing on the forum shorter and still include the analysis or commentary from a source that is within our common denominator on the Internet.

It is also intellectual laziness. These aren't the hallmarks of one who has done the necessary research and understands the scholarly method regarding history.

GoodK is correct that “not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.” That’s the issue.

It is a straw man which nobody has disagreed with. Remember? You fervently accused me of arguing this via micomprehension on your part. Even after it was shown I never made such an argument, you accused me of denial. Now you are here presenting another outrageous lie, saying I called Paine pro-Christian.

In addition there is wide disagreement about reliability of particulars found in the one primary source today for Christianity, the Bible.

Irrelevant to the issue. Surely you're able to come up with something new. You keep reguirgitating the same silly anecdotes as if we're supposed to be amazed. These things are not shocking to those who understand history. Everything we know about the Bible is perfectly consistent with what we would expect if Jesus were a real person.

That some book does not “deny” the existence of anything is only relevant in the prior claim of “existence.” And in that, there is wide disagreement as to just what “existence” means with regard to a character no one bothered to document at the time of his life, and which was converted to writing well after the alleged claims.

JAK again entertains the argument from silence. Historians are united in the view that writings were written during the time of Christ, but that none have survived. The fragments which we do have prove that they were not able to stand the test of time.

Acceptance as historical fact from verbal story-telling is unreliable history in any event.

You don't understand the evidence for Jesus, and are misrepresenting it to suit yor straw man. This is the JAK method. It is why you make outrageous claims about me and religion in general, without backing them up.

And in this particular case, it becomes a requirement for some believing pundits that they accept the defying of physics and the laws of science

Convenient derailment again. The laws of physics has nothing to do with the existence of Jesus.

Such pundits lack scholarship as they operate from in the box of unquestioning belief in biblical stories.

Another misrepresentation. JAK has his set list of misrepresentations to throw out into the thread as a diversion. He is now trying to avoid having to deal with the fact that he presented an outrageous lie about what I have claimed... again. It is his way of filibustering an issuewith longwinded rants, usually about the same thing that has nothing to do with the theme of the thread. The original claim was that Thomas Paine rejected the existence of Jesus and now JAK is doing everything he can to detract from that untenable assertion.

There is neutrality to be found in historical review of ancient times. That neutrality often clarifies that reliable, certain evidence is unavailable due to the erosion of time and lack of reliability of accounting.

And we are waiting for you and GoodK to present a "neutral" historian who rejects the historicity of Jesus. You still haven't come to grips with the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-Christian historians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Burden of proof lies with one who makes the assertion.

If you really believed that, then you would hold yourself and GoodK accountable by presenting proof. We're still waiting.

No one has provided evidence that word for word record of what a Jesus was alleged to have said. That would be required to meet burden of proof for the claim.

Another straw man attempt.

Dart stated:
“it has not been demonstrated that Thomas Paine rejected the historicity of Jesus.”

The writings and statements on record from T. Paine are evidence that he rejected religion.

Yes, rejecting religion and rejecting the existence of a historical figure are two separate arguments. GoodK was able to see that, so why aren't you?

If one wishes to document that Thomas Paine believed in the historicity of Jesus, it is that person who is obligated to establish such a claim. It has not been established in these discussions.

Pay attention everyone, because this point is very instructive about JAK's method that has unfortunately become a popular one on this forum. JAK doesn't want to come to grips with the fact that Thomas Paine was brought into tis thread as an example of someone who rejected the historicity of Jesus. All we have done is require that this claim be substantiated. JAK doesn' like that request. Now JAK thinks he can spin the situation by telling us to prove otherwise, as if we should just take it for granted that Paine believed as GoodK suggested. This proves he is not willing to abide by the standards he lays before his opponents. He is not interested in intellectual honesty. He is only interested in straw man construction and misrepresentation while posturing as someone with an adequate background in history.

The evidence of Thomas Paine’s views on religion can be reviewed at the website provided.

See? Now he switches back to Pain's view on "religion" which is not the same thing as Paine's view on Jesus.

Nothing in those “Thomas Paine Quotes” remotely suggests support for an affirmative case that he held respect for “historicity of Jesus.”

Notice again the switcharoo. Nothing in those quotes support the premise that Paine rejected the historicity of Jesus. JAK can't even seem to keep track of who presented what. Again, Paine was GoodK's baby. She brought him in as an example of a historian who rejected the historicity of Jesus.

It has never been challenged on this forum that “historicity of Jesus” is a mercurial notion.

Mercurial? It seems JAK's devotion to infidels.org is at least expanding his vocabulary.(http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... Jesus.html)
Don't think we're dealing with original thought here.

If we then add neutral scholars, those who have no commitment to any theological pattern of Christianity, we would have yet different and additional perspectives.

That's a theory, now lets see you prove it. I can provide many non-Christian historians who accept Jesus as a real. Calling your preferred list of historians "neutral" is flat out laughable.

The burden of proof for affirmative Jesus claims lies with those who make the claims. Second hand, third hand story telling does not establish reliable conclusion.

Another misrepresentation of the evidence. How can JAK ever hope to be taken seriously here?

(irrelevant rant and attempted derailment about denominational theology ignored)

Add to that neutral and unbiased historical scholarship

Where? All you have ever done JAK, is link us to the website of career anti-Christian antagonist, Farrel Till. That's your "neutral and unbiased" source?

If someone wishes to make a case that reliable note-taking was done at verbal expression of alleged Jesus at the time, such a person has the burden of proof to establish the claim. Absent evidence for a claim, the claim should be rejected.

And where is the evidence that nothing was written about Jesus until thirty years after his death? That was your original claim, or have you already forgotten? Following your standard, that claim must be rejected absent evidence. And we are still waiting for you to address the inconsistency in your standard. Do you also reject the historicity of Alexander, whose biographies date more than 400 years after his death?

Myths rely on truth by assertion. Such reliance is untenable.

"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.

[_Bond...James Bond]

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

Off topic, but just a thought spurred by this quote. I wonder if you could turn it around and thing that "a cruel existence creates a view of a cruel God."

I wonder if the nomadic Israelites wondering the desert (an existence perhaps a bit tougher than a sedentary existence) created the crueler God of the Old Testament. As they settled down and were able to create some comfort (at least a solid roof over their heads) they mellowed on the idea of God, leading to as more tolerance (Jesus perception).

Just a thought.

[_GoodK]

"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.

This is news to me. Historical evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are you referring to evidence other than the unreliable New Testament?

It's been demonstrated here that many people have faith in the New Testament, but how could anyone consider it evidence strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

[_JAK]

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.

JAK:

Evidence for Time & Surviving Documents

"A gap of about 175 years separates Jesus from the earliest surviving copies of the gospels." (source above)

And this statement is correct:

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

And we do know there is significant disagreement even among claiments for Jesus. Historians are by no means limited to only those who endorse one of the many claims made about and for the alleged Jesus.

Verbal retelling of stories does not make for reliable information or reliable detail.

To meet the burden of proof, we require exact quotations of the alleged Jesus from reliable, impartial observes of those words quoted in the New Testament. We don’t have that.

For support, we require strong evidence that reliable eye witnesses recorded at the time of events exactly what those events were. We don't have that.

JAK

[_JAK]

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

Off topic, but just a thought spurred by this quote. I wonder if you could turn it around and thing that "a cruel existence creates a view of a cruel God."

I wonder if the nomadic Israelites wondering the desert (an existence perhaps a bit tougher than a sedentary existence) created the crueler God of the Old Testament. As they settled down and were able to create some comfort (at least a solid roof over their heads) they mellowed on the idea of God, leading to as more tolerance (Jesus perception).

Just a thought.

JAK:

It’s an interesting thought and appears to have prima facie value.

However, it seems today at least in the US, when people have a narrow escape from death or serious injury, they say: Thank God.

When the tragedy hits, they don’t credit God, but default to: All things work together for good, or I guess it’s just how it’s supposed to be, or some other cliché which denies God credit.

JAK

[_JAK]

"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.

This is news to me. Historical evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are you referring to evidence other than the unreliable New Testament?

It's been demonstrated here that many people have faith in the New Testament, but how could anyone consider it evidence strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

JAK:

“Myth” is an issue with regard to story-telling that lacks reliable, skeptically reviewed analysis.

As you observe, the New Testament is “unreliable.” We know that from multiple sources and from the time-frame of the construction of the New Testament itself.

The New Testament would certainly not hold up in modern court if it could possibly be used in a current case. The opposing side would point out the contradictions and failed reliability in a second.

Christian mythology is clearly an issue. Repeated stories later written, then lost, then reconstructed produced mythology.

Claimed defiance of physics is an extraordinary claim. To be sustained, it would require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Story-telling and later story writing fails to establish extraordinary evidence.

“Faith” is irrelevant to historical fact in the question at issue “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

JAK