No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_Mary]

They are up against it though...

It can't be him, because he never existed?

and

It can't be him, because it indicates he was buried with Mary, Mariamene, Joses, and Jude (his son) and might have been just a man.

Oh well...!!

It's all fun..

I don't know why you make the distinction between evidence and argument by the way. The compelling argument is based on compelling evidence.
That's the point!

Mary

(I'm off to bed...It's late here....good to talk to you by the way)

[_GoodK]

I don't know why you make the distinction between evidence and argument by the way. The compelling argument is based on compelling evidence.
That's the point!

It's not compelling evidence because it is not conclusive. You can make a pretty good arguement that it is Jesus' family tomb, based on probabilities, and that may be a compelling argument, but the jury is definitely still out on this one.

That's why.

Nice talking to you.

[_Dr. Shades]

Nevo, I have an unrelated question. Did you get the umlaut by cutting and pasting, or is there some code for inserting them?

To get the umlaut--and darn near any other typographical symbol you can imagine--if you're a Windows user, click Start--> Programs--> Accessories--> Character Map. (It might be under the System Tools menu also).

Simply scroll down until you find the character you want, left-click once on it, then press the "Select" button followed by the "Copy" button. Right-click where you want the character to go and then select "Paste." Presto!

The Character Map program remains one of the best-kept secrets of Windows, even though it's right there in plain sight.

[_Mary]

To say 'not all historians accept Jesus' existence' is true in the same way as the statement 'not all scientists accept evolution'. In both cases the terms 'historian' and 'scientist' are being used with considerable flexibility, to put it politely (most on the list given were/are not historians), and a fringe view is being represented as somehow meaningful despite the fact that it has been kicked to the kerb by the academic consensus for decades.

Goodk, do you want to deal with Fortigurn's post. I thought it was a good one.

Mary

[_Trevor]

The Character Map program remains one of the best-kept secrets of Windows, even though it's right there in plain sight.

I'll look into the equivalent in Mac. Thanks!

[_GoodK]

To say 'not all historians accept Jesus' existence' is true in the same way as the statement 'not all scientists accept evolution'. In both cases the terms 'historian' and 'scientist' are being used with considerable flexibility, to put it politely (most on the list given were/are not historians), and a fringe view is being represented as somehow meaningful despite the fact that it has been kicked to the kerb by the academic consensus for decades.

Goodk, do you want to deal with Fortigurn's post. I thought it was a good one.

Mary

How shall I deal with it Mary? How does one deal with an opinion one has already disagreed with?
Would you like to browse through the entire thread first to see if it hasn't been dealt with already?
I get the impression you haven't read many of my comments on this topic.
No offense, but I find your method of discourse slightly annoying. Dart throwing.

[_Mary]

To say 'not all historians accept Jesus' existence' is true in the same way as the statement 'not all scientists accept evolution'. In both cases the terms 'historian' and 'scientist' are being used with considerable flexibility, to put it politely (most on the list given were/are not historians), and a fringe view is being represented as somehow meaningful despite the fact that it has been kicked to the kerb by the academic consensus for decades.

Goodk, do you want to deal with Fortigurn's post. I thought it was a good one.

Mary

How shall I deal with it Mary? How does one deal with an opinion one has already disagreed with?
Would you like to browse through the entire thread first to see if it hasn't been dealt with already?
I get the impression you haven't read many of my comments on this topic.
No offense, but I find your method of discourse slightly annoying. Dart throwing.

No offence taken Goodk, I guess I must have missed the part where you responded to Fortigurn, and I really did read the whole thread, but in all sincerity I havn't found (and I'm quite open minded on the subject of the non-existence of Jesus) any of the evidence you have given to support the idea convincing.

I'm quite happy to go along with a lot of the tentative conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, including Burton Mack etc, but I see no good reason to support an absolute 'non-existence' standpoint, and this thread hasn't convinced me as yet.

Mary

[_Trevor]

I'm quite happy to go along with a lot of the tentative conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, including Burton Mack etc, but I see no good reason to support an absolute 'non-existence' standpoint, and this thread hasn't convinced me as yet.

Mary

I should hope you would not be absolutely convinced. It speaks well of you.

[_Calculus Crusader]

You have a very loose criterion for whether someone is a historian or not.

[_scripturesearcher]

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.

And for a good reason. Evidence for the life of Alexander is abundant. These later historians to which you refer make use of (i.e. quote) source material written by identifiable authors who actually accompanied Alexander on campaign. Other evidences include the coins minted under Alexander that bear his name.

The case is quite different for Jesus. So much so that I would say that questioning the existence of Jesus is at least a worthwhile hypothesis to explore. The absence of texts between the purported dates for Jesus' life and the appearance of the first Gospels is only one reason to forward it. The absence of other evidences of his existence is another reason. The real historical problems with the sources we do have would be another.

I do not know whether Jesus existed or not. I do not see those who argue he did, or those who argue he did not, as being unreasonable and as lacking any ground to stand on. The question of Jesus' existence is fraught with problems.

The Gregorian calendar determines the year (A.D. or B.C) in relation to the birth of Jesus.
One would think that if the entire calendar system was altered, that it would have been changed for a real person.

I suspect that everyone included in the 65+ person list accepts this calendar.
I would even say that everyone reading and posting on this board accepts this calendar also.