No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_GoodK]

How can that possibly be construed to mean that he didn't believe Jesus was an actual historical figure? Paine rejects the supernatural aspect.

Because we would know nothing of Jesus if it weren't for the New Testament, and Paine clearly states he does not trust the New Testament.

How can you just clue in on one aspect of what Paine wrote and reject the other part that he wrote about Jesus? I do NOT care about the other people on the list -- no interest of mine. But, anyone saying that Paine rejected a historical Jesus on the basis of what he wrote about the Old Testament and New Testament is cherry picking.

Paine does NOT trust the New Testament -- yet, he writes in a way that leaves open the possibility of Jesus being a historical figure.

Hi Mon, I don't care about anyone specifically on the list either. I will gladly concede that I am not as familiar with Thomas Paine as others posting here.

I am puzzled by the quote you provided, and I await some other comments to hopefully clear things up.

What I do know is that Paine obviously detested the New Testament, and since that is the only so-called evidence for Jesus, I don't see how Paine would have thought him to be a historical figure.

I don't mean to cherry-pick - and if we take Paine off the list, there are still plenty more we can work with.

I also think "possibility" is a key word. [/i]

[_JAK]

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.

I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.

JAK:

Let’s see that “documentation.” Post a link. Post a source.

There is a significant amount of opinion in your statement which begins with “I documented Paine’s own words…”

You don’t document here.

On the Internet, one way is to link to the source.

Thomas Paine on Religion

JAK

[_JAK]

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.

I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.

JAK:
In addition, it’s not terribly relevant what Paine believed since his focus was on the American colonies and the American Revolution.

It's tangent to the issue of GoodK's post: "not all historians..."

JAK

[_JAK]

I'm interested in hearing the responses too. Just because some make the connection with despising the New Testament and rejecting a historical Jesus does not mean Paine did.

I could care less about this conversation -- I'm just here 'cause Paine is. I'm just a Paine gal -- he's my man! :)

JAK:

Well then, clearly you have a bias in favor of Thomas Paine. But it’s generally not relevant to GoodK’s issue retarding her well documented position that “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

Paine was mentioned in a post by Dart along with other names. Paine is not a good source for support of any religious bias. I am not suggesting that you are affirming that, only to clarify how that name got into the discussion.

JAK

[_Moniker]

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.

I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.

JAK:

Let’s see that “documentation.” Post a link. Post a source.

There is a significant amount of opinion in your statement which begins with “I documented Paine’s own words…”

You don’t document here.

On the Internet, one way is to link to the source.

Thomas Paine on Religion

JAK

Oh, dear -- we must have different definitions of document, JAK. To document, the last I checked, meant to offer evidence up, to support with citations, etc... I certainly did so by saying who the author was and what document it could be found in. I didn't post a link 'cause I actually have the entire book copy saved on my computer and merely copy and pasted from it and didn't use an internet source. Yet, the internet has his book in full form in many places.

I said what my source was. It is Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

I posted from Part First, Section 2: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason2.htm go to the fifth paragraph down and you can see the quote I posted. I posted the sixth paragraph as well. I later posted the 10th paragraph.

This entire section deals with Paine decrying the supernatural aspects of the birth, life, and death of Jesus.

As to your link on Paine's views of religion -- why is this being offered to me? I have already stated numerous times that Paine decries organized religion and Christianity specifically.

[_Moniker]

I'm interested in hearing the responses too. Just because some make the connection with despising the New Testament and rejecting a historical Jesus does not mean Paine did.

I could care less about this conversation -- I'm just here 'cause Paine is. I'm just a Paine gal -- he's my man! :)

JAK:

Well then, clearly you have a bias in favor of Thomas Paine. But it’s generally not relevant to GoodK’s issue retarding her well documented position that “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

Paine was mentioned in a post by Dart along with other names. Paine is not a good source for support of any religious bias. I am not suggesting that you are affirming that, only to clarify how that name got into the discussion.

JAK

I certainly enjoy Paine quite a bit, and his works -- as well as his historical impact on our revolution, founding, and declaration. I just thought I could help with the question of whether this particular man denied the existence of Jesus seeing that I'm quite familiar with him and his works.

I read this quote of GoodK's:

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 thought I could shed some light on the matter. I think it's could quite easily be the case that one could see his quotes on religion and assume he denied Jesus as a historical figure. He certainly did not care for Christianity! I was merely trying to give a fuller picture on the issue of Paine's views of Jesus and the claims of Christianity.

[_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

Jak,

I see we've both stumbled upon the same website for Paine quotes. Apparently Paine was not being clear enough when he said "I detest the Bible" or said that it was "blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion" for Kevin.

I don't think we'll ever find a quote where Thomas Paine says he "denies the historical Jesus" so where do we go from there?

If the New Testament is the only "evidence" for Jesus, I think Paine belongs on the long list I provided.

What are your thoughts?

JAK:

GoodK,

Your conclusion stated previously and again in the topic of this thread is established. We need go nowhere from here.

It does not matter that no quote is found by Paine which states your conclusion. We know what he thought of religion and religious dogma from the many quotes attributed to Paine. We also need to keep in mind the date for Paine’s life. Documentation of what people said or thought was far superior 1,700 years past the time of the New Testament.

And it was not only Paine but Thomas Jefferson and others of leadership position in the forming of the American Colonies who held religion in low esteem.

It’s only tangent to your topic, but of some importance as well.

It’s not your/my obligation to find evidence to support Dart’s view, it’s his burden of proof.

Historians or historical scholars who are neutral on issues of religious dogma are inherently more objective than those who profess to adhere to some/any religious doctrine.

That principle is why medical science does double blind tests to see if a new drug or new treatment is effective. If one wants information and evidence to be as objective as possible, one wants that evidence from a disinterested observer who does the testing.

Paine was clear enough for the objective observer.

Doctrine over documentation is a general mantra of religious dogma.

You have established your topic heading.

I’ll assume you found time to see Evidence for Time & Surviving Documents.

JAK

[_JAK]

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.

I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.

JAK:

Let’s see that “documentation.” Post a link. Post a source.

There is a significant amount of opinion in your statement which begins with “I documented Paine’s own words…”

You don’t document here.

On the Internet, one way is to link to the source.

Thomas Paine on Religion

JAK

Oh, dear -- we must have different definitions of document, JAK. To document, the last I checked, meant to offer evidence up, to support with citations, etc... I certainly did so by saying who the author was and what document it could be found in. I didn't post a link 'cause I actually have the entire book copy saved on my computer and merely copy and pasted from it and didn't use an internet source. Yet, the internet has his book in full form in many places.

I said what my source was. It is Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

I posted from Part First, Section 2: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason2.htm go to the fifth paragraph down and you can see the quote I posted. I posted the sixth paragraph as well. I later posted the 10th paragraph.

This entire section deals with Paine decrying the supernatural aspects of the birth, life, and death of Jesus.

As to your link on Paine's views of religion -- why is this being offered to me? I have already stated numerous times that Paine decries organized religion and Christianity specifically.

JAK:

Thanks for the references. (I'll clarify at the end why I address you.)

In reading Section 2, it’s something of a leap to conclusion that Paine believed any of these accounts, and was skeptical of all including the stories themselves. If he were truly skeptical as this document demonstrates, he may also have been well aware that Christians of his time would have objected to a dismissal of the entire story.

From your source:

“Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.”

There is a considerable amount of intellect at work in the entire “Age of Reason.” In bold is a strong suggestion that history “existence” is "altogether the work of other people."

The context of the entire reference gives little comfort to those who wish Paine and not written as he did. When he recognizes that there is “probability” that such an execution might have taken place, he is not confirming an historical figure as is characterized by Christianity. The doctrines of Christianity reject Paine's rationalism.

As I previously asked, What is meant by “existence of Jesus”? If we eliminate all Paine eliminates, we do not have the “Jesus” of the Bible at all. We are left with a kind of crusader who was quite ordinary and likely would never have been recognized were it not for the myths of the Bible which elevated by miracle that which a rational analyst such as Paine had the intellectual capacity to see were false.

Hence “existence of Jesus” absent the Bible is quite different than what we have in Christianity’s versions of “existence of Jesus.”

I responded to your post just as it stood and as you stated: “I documented Paine’s own words…”

If you stated that documentation previously, I did not see it, hence, I addressed my comments to you based on your post here just as it stands (the first post).

Again, my thanks to you for supplying the references.

JAK

[_JAK]

I'm interested in hearing the responses too. Just because some make the connection with despising the New Testament and rejecting a historical Jesus does not mean Paine did.

I could care less about this conversation -- I'm just here 'cause Paine is. I'm just a Paine gal -- he's my man! :)

JAK:

Well then, clearly you have a bias in favor of Thomas Paine. But it’s generally not relevant to GoodK’s issue retarding her well documented position that “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”

Paine was mentioned in a post by Dart along with other names. Paine is not a good source for support of any religious bias. I am not suggesting that you are affirming that, only to clarify how that name got into the discussion.

JAK

I certainly enjoy Paine quite a bit, and his works -- as well as his historical impact on our revolution, founding, and declaration. I just thought I could help with the question of whether this particular man denied the existence of Jesus seeing that I'm quite familiar with him and his works.

I read this quote of GoodK's:

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 thought I could shed some light on the matter. I think it's could quite easily be the case that one could see his quotes on religion and assume he denied Jesus as a historical figure. He certainly did not care for Christianity! I was merely trying to give a fuller picture on the issue of Paine's views of Jesus and the claims of Christianity.

Moniker,

For emphasis, let me address your last paragraph in this 11:01 am Apr 1 post.

(It’s unfortunate that responses are often far removed from that to which they are a response.)

Moniker:

“I thought I could shed some light on the matter. I think it's could quite easily be the case that one could see his quotes on religion and assume he denied Jesus as a historical figure. He certainly did not care for Christianity! I was merely trying to give a fuller picture on the issue of Paine's views of Jesus and the claims of Christianity.”

JAK:

In a way, you did “shed some light…” However, what is “a historical figure”? What do we mean by “historical”? Christianity in its various versions/forms projects Jesus in a variety of ways. Unitarian Universalists have a very different “historical figure” than Baptists. Baptists have a very different “historical figure” than the official Roman Catholic Church’s figure.

So, “will the real historical figure please stand up?” By rejecting all the supernatural claims of Christianity, Paine and many others since (and before) reject Christian claims for “existence of Jesus” as characterized by biblical accounts. If we eliminate biblical accounts and their interpretations, what do we have? We have nothing or very little. Spin-offs as a result of biblical accounts are, themselves, subject to bias.

Your point, Moniker, is well taken. However, it is more extensive than your posts (which I have read) would detail. The “fuller picture” must include the non-partisan historians who regard any Jesus figure as speculative at best and non-existent (for Christianity) at worst. So, the question remains, What do we (or do individuals) regard as “existence of Jesus”?

I appreciate your interest in shedding “some light…” I also appreciate that there is more light to be shed. What is meant by “historical figure” is a matter of interpretation. It is also a matter of Christianity and its various doctrines, dogmas, and lack thereof.

What do we know for sure? The answer is not very much. Despite all the books and “scholarly” writings including the skepticism of Thomas Paine, we know there is much ambiguity.

Would you agree?

We cannot rely on any of the various and numerous claims. They rest on truth by assertion. We cannot rely on first-hand accounts because there are none.

In discussion, evidence is critical. But as we look back 2,000 years, we have little to nothing of evidence. What we have instead is stories and the mythology of Christianity which clearly has its own self-interests in perpetuation.

I recognize you stated more than this paragraph on which I focused. But, I think this final paragraph of yours is quite important, and I choose to focus on that.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

GoodK,

I think that part of problem with this thread is reflected in your link

Demolishing the Jesus Myth – A History

For more than 200 years a minority of courageous scholars have dared to question the story of Jesus. Despite the risks of physical assault, professional ruin and social opprobrium, they have seriously doubted the veracity of the gospel saga, have peeled away the layers of fraud and deceit and eventually have challenged the very existence of the godman.

The word eventually implies that least some of these folks, probably mainly the early ones, did not challenge the historicity of Jesus. Questioning the story of Jesus can mean many things. For Deists, it would mean challenging the miracles in the story. For Unitarians, it might mean that plus rejecting explicitly the deity of Jesus. Thus, the introduction is inconsistent with your assertion that all these folks denied the existence of Jesus. Based on your own link, it’s less than the list you cite.

And I think that the New Testament has much evidence in its favor. What are your top five candidates for contradictions in it. Perhaps we could start a separate thread for this.