So that's it for the election.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

Yes, they are. But we're probably talking about different facts and accounts, because when it comes to religious figures, some of you see red.

I am talking about Jesus having existed, having been generally revered by Christians, and having been crucified. Nothing religious, nothing supernatural. Just the basic outlines of him as a historical figure. Those accounts were corroborated by Tacitus (a Roman, non-Christian historian), and to a lesser extent, Josephus. You also can't entirely discount scripture. You can set aside the supernatural details, but you should at least account for the fact that the writings identify Jesus as having existed. They are not sufficient on their own to prove that he did because they are obviously biased, but taken together with an unbiased and highly reliable third source, you have a historical figure as fleshed out as nearly any.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Congratulations, sir. You have learned the hard lesson of researching backward to the primary sources of your references. You introduced Robert Price into this discussion, not me. If you check your other primary sources, every one of them uses a qualifier. The Wiki entry is misleading at best. Personally, I would call the phrasing disingenuous; it is not representative of the statements made by the experts it references.

I don't recall asking for any such things. You're projecting onto me a generic argument you've apparently had with one or more atheists in the past. I doubted the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You took issue with that. You've gone on several rants full of ad hominem cuts. Your posts on this topic are rife with insults and both formal and informal logical fallacies.

It's not me that has a big issue here. I actually think religion is very beneficial. I think it minimizes a lot of behavior that would be disadvantageous to me and the people I care about. It also provides tremendous opportunities in social networking. I know the Bible well enough to quote from memory and many people in my personal life would swear to you that I am a devout Christian. I might even be able to orate Pascal's Wager with a straight face.

Nah, I'm not that good of an actor.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

It's not Wikipedia, me, or a plethora of scholars that are being disingenuous. It's you. So again, if you were the unbiased evaluator you claim to be, why do you continue to disregard the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of scholars?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus

It's not Wikipedia, me, or a plethora of scholars that are being disingenuous. It's you. So again, if you were the unbiased evaluator you claim to be, why do you continue to disregard the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of scholars?

They are putting out the supposition that he existed not the fact that he did. They are saying basically, "in my informed opinion Jesus did exist".

Stop derpin'

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are putting out the supposition that he existed not the fact that he did. They are saying basically, "in my informed opinion Jesus did exist".

Stop derpin'

Holy shit you can't possibly be this stupid.

"Jesus certainly existed".

You're either borderline retarded or the least entertaining troll in P99 history.

[stonez138]

I'm saying there is no tangible evidence that either of them ever existed.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/house%20of%20hazrat%20haleema%20%28rz%29%20where%2 0prophet%20muhammad%20%28saw%29%20lived%20the%20fi rst%204%20years%20of%20his%20life" target="_blank"><img src="http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/kuliwarnet/Private/n71778625607_4206534_7549.jpg" border="0" alt="House of Hazrat Haleema (RZ) where Prophet Muhammad (SAW) lived the first 4 years of his life. Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

There is actually A LOT of tangible evidence Muhammad existed. What do you want a dna sample?

[Lucky]

There is plenty of evidence Jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Hitchens]

There is not a valid reason to doubt the historical existence of a human male from Galilee named Jesus who was eventually crucified by Pilate. Anything beyond that is perfectly fair game.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Holy shit you can't possibly be this stupid.

"Jesus certainly existed".

You're either borderline retarded or the least entertaining troll in P99 history.

Well if that guys makes a statement it has to be true right? His statement is an opinion.
I don't doubt Jesus existed as a person, I do doubt that anyone can prove it.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is not a valid reason to doubt the historical existence of a human male from Galilee named Jesus who was eventually crucified by Pilate. Anything beyond that is perfectly fair game.

Agreed.

[Ravager]

It's questionable whether any of you exist based on the evidence present. Hell, how do I know that Alarti is Alarti and not really George Clooney?