Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2014, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 03:16 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 02:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 01:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Each version of the trial in each Gospel record demonstrates the exact same consistency.

The Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, and Pilate executed him.

Although I agree that there may have been a Q document, we have no direct evidence for that. I will concede however that the Synoptics are based on virtually the same source, but that source could easily be Mark.

Nonetheless, all 4 Gospels say the same consistent thing, and the very reason why they are credible is exactly because of what you said; "The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different."

If they were identical, you would have a point, but because you have said that they are vastly different, it makes my point very clear. 4 "vastly different" accounts of a trial is very persuasive. Wink

Like I said, the trial was but a mere amusement to Pilate.

Nice story bro. Needs some dragons and vampires though.

There is no way to falsify this fantasy-narrative you keep repeating.
You actually have no idea what did or did not happen, and no way to verify it. Constantly repeating a fiction does not make it true.
It may be "persuasive" to you. It is not to me. Any other event told with "vastly different" details would be dismissed as historical rubbish. You're desperate to maintain that the historicity
of this dude is reasonable. It is not.

Meh, that's how history is written.

You don't have to like it, or accept it. But the fact is when you have numerous different versions- such as my hypothetical accident scenario above- of the exact same thing from several sources, why should we say it never happened?

1. Gospel of Mark.
2. Gospel of Matthew
3. Gospel of Luke.
4. Gospel of John.
5. Paul the Gentile
6. Josephus the Jew
7. Tacitus the Roman

All of them indicate that Jesus, who was called Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Seems to me to be quite reasonable to conclude that Jesus who was called Christ was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Quite frankly I have no problem with that and cannot understand why anyone else would. Is it militant bias? Does the hatred for this religion run so deep that people simply refuse to accept it? Is the constant request for more evidence than necessary actually ... necessary?

How much is enough?

And finally, does it even fucking matter if he existed or not? The problem isn't him. The problem in this world is religion, and NONE of you can disagree with me there.

RIP: Peter Kassig


Sad

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 03:38 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Jesus historicity
There are thousands of currently alive witnesses to bigfoot.

There is physical evidence of bigfoot in tracks and random hairs found.

There are videos of bigfoot running through the trees.

SO there must be a bigfoot......................

A plethora of fan-created stories and interpolations by agenda biased disingenuous clerics does not evidence make. Neither does 3 fans retelling one man's story equal 4 separate witnesses of the bigfoot. If Frank told three friends he saw bigfoot, and they believing frank, told their friends and family that bigfoot exists, ...that does not qualify as 4 witnesses to bigfoot.

1. Gospel of Mark. The original story used by the others to build their story, so anything stated there, and retold in the others stories does not mean there are multiple witnesses of the same events, it is reselling of the gospel of Mark, with added trimmings and shiny things to make it super sexy. Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. Biblical scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. So anything contained within Mark is suspect. How does one separate any facts from the fiction. Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

2. Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is riddled with whimsical creative writings as well. I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line.

The anonymous authors of Matthew used Mark as the basis for their fairy tale. Them retelling the pilate execution story dos not make an independent source.

3. Gospel of Luke. Based on Mark, and many scholars now posit that the author/s of Luke was/were not Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Regardless, another retelling/respinning of a story by the Mark group does not make an independent validation of pilate and jesus.

4. Gospel of John. John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me parphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

The works of "john" have been traced not to John, but to the "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John. Traditions mean oral stories passed down..hardly evidence of anything but great stories....people love to tell stories, and embellish them.

5. Paul the Gentile. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Hardly a solid source of irrefutable information.

6. Josephus the Jew. I will repost the facts since it obviously wasn't read or considered.

In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.

There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

7. Tacitus the Roman. Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

In regards to "christus".

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."

The Christian-preferred Latin of this sentence is as follows:

Iudaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings "of the Greeks in all ages, pre-Christian as well as post-Christian." Examples of these epithets can be studied in August Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. We read elsewhere that the epithet "Chrestos" appears commonly on the epitaphs of most citizens of Larissa, Greece, specifically in the form of chrestos heros , this latter term meaning "hero" and "demigod." The Greek word chrestos was popular also as an epithet or on epitaphs at various Egyptian funerary sites as at Alexandria and elsewhere.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation. Another artifact with significance in this analysis of the uses of chrestos in antiquity is the chi-rho symbol.

Chrestus/christus being disingenuously presented to mean christ or christians is conjecture at its best.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
17-11-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 02:44 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't have to like it, or accept it. But the fact is when you have numerous different versions- such as my hypothetical accident scenario above- of the exact same thing from several sources, why should we say it never happened?

Because we don't have different independent versions like your traffic accident. We have the cops interviewing the first "witness" 10 years after the event who is actually somebody who only says that they talked to actual witnesses. Then the cops wait 10 years and take the story to the second "witness" who also may or may not have actually been a real witness but who reads the first story and amends it. Ten years later the cops take the first 2 statements to the next "witness" who reads them and writes a new version.

What we have is not testimony, it's story telling.

Quote:Quite frankly I have no problem with that and cannot understand why anyone else would. Is it militant bias? Does the hatred for this religion run so deep that people simply refuse to accept it? Is the constant request for more evidence than necessary actually ... necessary?

From my perspective the evidence is simply too skimpy to be accepted and I'm not requesting more than is necessary. The problem to me is that your standards of evidence are pretty low.

Quote:And finally, does it even fucking matter if he existed or not? The problem isn't him. The problem in this world is religion, and NONE of you can disagree with me there.

It doesn't actually change anything if he didn't exist. Christianity would be shaken but I'm sure they'd come up with some rationalization and carry on.

The problem isn't even religion per se, it is the religious forcing others to live by their rules and standards without good secular reason. To that end it is important that the standards of evidence be maintained at a high level and that's why I care that people accept Jesus as a historical character on what I see as insufficient grounds. If excuses and rationalizations are accepted for that then they will be accepted for other things.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
17-11-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
It has nothing to do with "hatred for this religion". Don't be ridiculous. In fact there are things about it quite enjoy, (or used to). That's not the motivation for my skepticism. The "numerous" versions are cast in a mythical literary format, (as Carrier has clearly demonstrated). Thus without ANY historical reference points the most reasonable thing is to assume it's mythological.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-11-2014, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 04:33 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 03:30 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There are thousands of currently alive witnesses to bigfoot.

There is physical evidence of bigfoot in tracks and random hairs found.

There are videos of bigfoot running through the trees.

SO there must be a bigfoot......................

A plethora of fan-created stories and interpolations by agenda biased disingenuous clerics does not evidence make. Neither does 3 fans retelling one man's story equal 4 separate witnesses of the bigfoot. If Frank told three friends he saw bigfoot, and they believing frank, told their friends and family that bigfoot exists, ...that does not qualify as 4 witnesses to bigfoot


Are you trying to make an analogy of something we have today- and which has a chance of either being confirmed or denied- with something in ancient history where there is zero percent chance of positively being confirmed?

Big Foot could be positively confirmed or denied, but in ancient history NOTHING can be conclusively and indisputably confirmed. In regards to ancient history, the best that can ever be done is to approximate the truth according to the best available evidence using the Historical Method.

In 1962 they found the Pilate Stone "confirming" the existence of Pontius Pilate. Despite that, along with Josephus' records, one would think, "Yep, it's 100% proof that Pilate existed."

But it is not 100% proof of Pilate's existence. Sure, the evidence is compelling, and the odds are very good that he existed, but again that is not how ancient history works. According to the evidence we can assume the existence of Pilate, but we can never say it's a 100% done deal.

But ... we have a single inscription, 4 gospel records, the words of Paul, Josephus and Tacitus regarding Pilate. So here's a question:

Should we reasonably doubt that Pilate existed?

If not, why not? The standard for the evidence is almost exactly the same for Jesus.

So did Pilate exist or not? What is the probability? You tell me.

And what of John the Baptist? Josephus mentions him, so should we think that John the Baptist did not exist just because he's also written about in the gospel records? If that is the standard that you think we need to apply to ancient history then why don't we just completely eliminate everybody from ancient history and be done with it all?

Where do we draw the line here? Why is the demand for evidence of the existence of Jesus so drastically higher than it is for persons we already accept as having existed in ancient history, and those persons being barely a footnote?

Tell me something, and be honest about it.

When you read ancient history that portrays ancient persons, is the first thing that comes into your mind a question as to whether or not they existed?

Think about that.

I'll post more later.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 04:37 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 04:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 03:30 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There are thousands of currently alive witnesses to bigfoot.

There is physical evidence of bigfoot in tracks and random hairs found.

There are videos of bigfoot running through the trees.

SO there must be a bigfoot......................

A plethora of fan-created stories and interpolations by agenda biased disingenuous clerics does not evidence make. Neither does 3 fans retelling one man's story equal 4 separate witnesses of the bigfoot. If Frank told three friends he saw bigfoot, and they believing frank, told their friends and family that bigfoot exists, ...that does not qualify as 4 witnesses to bigfoot


Are you trying to make an analogy of something we have today- and which has a chance of either being confirmed or denied- with something in ancient history where there is zero percent chance of positively being confirmed?

Big Foot could be positively confirmed or denied, but in ancient history NOTHING can be conclusively and indisputably confirmed. In regards to ancient history, the best that can ever be done is to approximate the truth according to the best available evidence using the Historical Method.

In 1962 they found the Pilate Stone "confirming" the existence of Pontius Pilate. Despite that, along with Josephus' records, one would think, "Yep, it's 100% proof that Pilate existed."

But it is not 100% proof of Pilate's existence. Sure, the evidence is compelling, and the odds are very good that he existed, but again that is not how ancient history works. According to the evidence we can assume the existence of Pilate, but we can never say it's a 100% done deal.

But ... we have a single inscription, 4 gospel records, the words of Paul, Josephus and Tacitus regarding Pilate. So here's a question:

Should we reasonably doubt that Pilate existed?

If not, why not? The standard for the evidence is almost exactly the same for Jesus.

So did Pilate exist or not? What is the probability? You tell me.

And what of John the Baptist? Josephus mentions him, so should we think that John the Baptist did not exist just because he's also written about in the gospel records? If that is the standard that you think we need to apply to ancient history then why don't we just completely eliminate everybody from ancient history and be done with it all?

Where do we draw the line here? Why is the demand for evidence of the existence of Jesus so drastically higher than it is for persons we already accept as having existed in ancient history, and those persons being barely a footnote?

Tell me something, and be honest about it.

When you read ancient history that portrays ancient persons, does the first thing that comes into you mind a question as to whether or not they existed?

Think about that.

I'll post more later.

We should be skeptical of Pilate and John the Baptist... and also acknowledge when some people have better standing evidence than others.

I don't get why you purpose that these distinctions aren't made. We should be skeptical of everything of the era, as someone who says they're skeptical and like to view things from different perspectives with differing opinions, why would you accept claims over remaining open and skeptical in this positions. Of course right away when I've recently read about Genghis Khan or other ancient historical figures I question or not they exist/HOW accurate the data of them actually is... these questions should remain tied one in the same at all times to as many questions as possible.

These high standards should exist for all of these figures, the same applies to Socrates or whoever else we have questionable evidence. It's a matter of questioning.. and questioning how fitting these descriptions of these people were as well as if they existed at all, or if it's a conglomeration of multiple people.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-11-2014, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 05:12 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 04:34 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  We should be skeptical of Pilate and John the Baptist... and also acknowledge when some people have better standing evidence than others.

I don't get why you purpose that these distinctions aren't made. We should be skeptical of everything of the era, as someone who says they're skeptical and like to view things from different perspectives with differing opinions, why would you accept claims over remaining open and skeptical in this positions. Of course right away when I've recently read about Genghis Khan or other ancient historical figures I question or not they exist/HOW accurate the data of them actually is... these questions should remain tied one in the same at all times to as many questions as possible.

These high standards should exist for all of these figures, the same applies to Socrates or whoever else we have questionable evidence. It's a matter of questioning.. and questioning how fitting these descriptions of these people were as well as if they existed at all, or if it's a conglomeration of multiple people.

But of course we should be skeptical, but taking skepticism to the extent of militantly debunking something just because we don't like it is not intellectually honest, in my opinion.

One should never take skepticism to such a point as to go beyond all reason.

We will never approximate the truth that way. Never.

Ancient history is not at all like the sciences. When science makes a discovery, they go forward with it and see where it leads them, verifying things all along the way.

Ancient history cannot verify anything in the past. All we can do is approximate the truth and present the best explanation we can according to the evidence.

People can either accept those explanations, or disregard them. Everyone has a choice for a certainty, but it is how that choice is formulated is what leads people to disregard or accept things, and sometimes that formula is corrupted- particularly in this subject- by militant bias.

But, we are all human, and that's the nature of the human beast.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 04:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It has nothing to do with "hatred for this religion". Don't be ridiculous. In fact there are things about it quite enjoy, (or used to). That's not the motivation for my skepticism. The "numerous" versions are cast in a mythical literary format, (as Carrier has clearly demonstrated). Thus without ANY historical reference points the most reasonable thing is to assume it's mythological.

lol

No, the most reasonable thing to do is take all the evidence in it's totality to reach an intellectually honest explanation.

Carrier miserably fails to do this. He's always failed to do it. He seems more interested in selling books than in bonifide history. All he seems to be saying lately is, "It's in my upcoming book."

Sure, he's a qualified historian for sure. But he's not a particularly good one.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 05:09 PM)Free Wrote:  the most reasonable thing to do is take all the evidence in it's totality to reach an intellectually honest explanation.

Carrier miserably fails to do this. He's always failed to do it. He seems more interested in selling books than in bonifide history. All he seems to be saying lately is, "It's in my upcoming book."

Sure, he's a qualified historian for sure. But he's not a particularly good one.

That may be your opinion. It's shared by many, and not shared by many others. It's hardly as strong as the claims believers seem to think it is, IMO. There is no "evidence" to be taken "in totality" that I can see, when it comes right down to it. The gospels are evidence of belief in (or an attempt to promote a new cult) which was composed of bits and pieces of other common circulating themes from the time, foisted onto ignorant illiterates. There are good reasons to doubt everything.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-11-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 06:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 05:09 PM)Free Wrote:  the most reasonable thing to do is take all the evidence in it's totality to reach an intellectually honest explanation.

Carrier miserably fails to do this. He's always failed to do it. He seems more interested in selling books than in bonifide history. All he seems to be saying lately is, "It's in my upcoming book."

Sure, he's a qualified historian for sure. But he's not a particularly good one.

That may be your opinion. It's shared by many, and not shared by many others. It's hardly as strong as the claims believers seem to think it is, IMO. There is no "evidence" to be taken "in totality" that I can see, when it comes right down to it. The gospels are evidence of belief in (or an attempt to promote a new cult) which was composed of bits and pieces of other common circulating themes from the time, foisted onto ignorant illiterates. There are good reasons to doubt everything.

There's nothing you've said here that I don't agree with.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: