R
RyanBlack
Guest
In scholarly circles the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed is not a matter of serious debate. His actual existence is accepted as a matter of historical fact.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That a person named Jesus from whom Christianity sprang ever existed is not in doubt. (He did.)
Whether or not He was God, as He and His followers claimed, is another matter.
Z
zz912
Guest
No, there really aren’t. There is a LOT of evidence showing that He existed. There’s absolutely NONE suggesting He didn’t exist. Whether you believe Jesus is God or not is not relevant to the question of if He existed. No serious scholar believes He did not exist.
M
mkoopman
Guest
I believe that there are a significant number of connections with White Supremacist Hate groups making a great deal of noise about Jesus as a myth. These groups hold a large amount of internet text archives with Jesus as a myth discourses. This would be my first redaction on a suggestion that there is serious evidence that Jesus did not exist.
These groups, such as, “The Boot Boys,” are certainly not scholarly. However, it may be good to keep in mind that these groups are indeed, serious.
Serious scholars, no. Seriously demented and dangerous, yes. It depends on what you meant by serious; don’t it?
From a warm and cozy academic chair position you may be too high for most of these groups to reach. From those areas where charity is needed – you are generally in harm’s way. It may depend upon the viewpoint you are holding from which side of the tracks.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Not that you’re necessarily claiming otherwise, but citing consensus can only tell us what most people believe about a proposition. It can’t be used to establish the truth or falsity of a proposition. After all, it was only 100 years ago that there was only one person on Earth who advocated for the theory of plate tectonics.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Is Thomas L. Brodie, Catholic priest, co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute serious enough for you?
H
Havard
Guest
I suppose that’s possible, but without your explanation on the distinction, that is a rather confusing way to ask such a simple question. In my experience, people say “where’s your proof that Jesus was the Son of God” and the like.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m sorry for not being clear enough in trying to say that it can be a matter of perspective - one would have to take the New Testament at some kind of face value - possibly because of the culture within which people are raised - in order to even ask the question of ‘proof’ in the first place. Those of us who do not take it at face value would only ask that sort of ‘Son of God’ (my suggested ‘JESUS’) question in the way we may discuss the character in a play or book.
T
tower_of_babel
Guest
in my opinion. the only educated people , who would argue against his existence , are those who dislike Christianity and are desperate for him not to exist. (which is quite sad)
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Thomas L. Brodie* seems fairly well educated and doesn’t appear to dislike Christianity.
*Link repaired
H
Havard
Guest
That makes sense, though I imagine it would differ between observant members of other faiths and atheists and agnostics. Most of the people I find engaging in these questions are on the instigatory end of the latter category.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not really. He’s been forced from his teaching position and banned from public lecturing.
That means no one is really listening to him at this point.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
It is highly unlikely that a messianic religion (one that would rapidly transform the ancient world) would form in such a short time after Jesus’ purported death unless there actually was a person whom people would consider a Messiah. Atheists love to posit the idea of “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” as a supposed analog to a belief in God, but you could not form a religion around such an inane personage within the space of a few years, and moreover create a cadre of believers willing to risk becoming a societal pariah within their community and, in some cases, becoming martyrs. People transform themselves and their communities so radically because of real relationships, not fictitious entities.
Bart Ehrman is a well-known agnostic (strongly leaning towards atheist) Biblical scholar. He has frequently debated prominent Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and others. His conclusions on scriptural errancy are controversial and are unlikely to find favor with most Christians, and clearly, he does not believe in God or the Divinity of Jesus. And yet even he argues that Jesus was an historical personage, and published a recent book listing all the evidence that Jesus existed. (Which is quite good on the evidence, although of course we draw different conclusions on His Divinity: “Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth” (HarperCollins, 2012)) The article made him many enemies within the Mythicist subculture of the atheist community, so I credit him with intellectual honesty and courage.
In the field of ancient history scholarship, the stance that Jesus was ahistorical is on a par with the belief that we didn’t really land on the moon (for those who work in the field of aeronautics), or that the holocaust was a myth (for those who work in the field of modern history), or that the 9/11 attacks were stage-managed CIA detonations in New York and robot-controlled empty planes in the Pentagon (for structural engineers and EOD specialists). You’re so far on the fringes of accepted scholarship if you believe any of these four propositions that you are, to use a technical term, a nut-job.
That’s not to say that you won’t find a few nut-jobs in any profession who hold eccentric, bizarre, outré, freaky beliefs that the cohorts of their fellow scholars don’t hold, but we can safely discount them.
Here’s a selection of comments from prominent (mostly atheist or agnostic) New Testament historians that reflect the scholarly consensus that the Mythicists are, in fact, crazy as a soup sandwich: bede.org.uk/price1.htm
The classical history site Armarium Magnum (run by an atheist, no less) had an excellent, lengthy rejoinder to a book that claimed Jesus never existed (content warning: there is some harsh language for the reviewer’s critics) that demolishes most of the Mythicists’ historical arguments. A follow-up article answered the counter-arguments that the angry mythicists posted:
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html
Bart Ehrman is a well-known agnostic (strongly leaning towards atheist) Biblical scholar. He has frequently debated prominent Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and others. His conclusions on scriptural errancy are controversial and are unlikely to find favor with most Christians, and clearly, he does not believe in God or the Divinity of Jesus. And yet even he argues that Jesus was an historical personage, and published a recent book listing all the evidence that Jesus existed. (Which is quite good on the evidence, although of course we draw different conclusions on His Divinity: “Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth” (HarperCollins, 2012)) The article made him many enemies within the Mythicist subculture of the atheist community, so I credit him with intellectual honesty and courage.
In the field of ancient history scholarship, the stance that Jesus was ahistorical is on a par with the belief that we didn’t really land on the moon (for those who work in the field of aeronautics), or that the holocaust was a myth (for those who work in the field of modern history), or that the 9/11 attacks were stage-managed CIA detonations in New York and robot-controlled empty planes in the Pentagon (for structural engineers and EOD specialists). You’re so far on the fringes of accepted scholarship if you believe any of these four propositions that you are, to use a technical term, a nut-job.
That’s not to say that you won’t find a few nut-jobs in any profession who hold eccentric, bizarre, outré, freaky beliefs that the cohorts of their fellow scholars don’t hold, but we can safely discount them.
Here’s a selection of comments from prominent (mostly atheist or agnostic) New Testament historians that reflect the scholarly consensus that the Mythicists are, in fact, crazy as a soup sandwich: bede.org.uk/price1.htm
The classical history site Armarium Magnum (run by an atheist, no less) had an excellent, lengthy rejoinder to a book that claimed Jesus never existed (content warning: there is some harsh language for the reviewer’s critics) that demolishes most of the Mythicists’ historical arguments. A follow-up article answered the counter-arguments that the angry mythicists posted:
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Just because the RCC censored him where it holds sway doesn’t mean that no one no longer reads his books or that his scholarship is any less serious.
O
oneofmany
Guest
city-data.com/forum/christianity/2199326-catholic-answers-how-confront-anti-catholicism-5.html#post36513832
This is the discussion I was referring to but you will need to go to the end to find the discussion on Jesus. I told him about this thread and he (of course) disagrees with all of you. Big surprise
,
This is the discussion I was referring to but you will need to go to the end to find the discussion on Jesus. I told him about this thread and he (of course) disagrees with all of you. Big surprise
,
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Mythicists I’m most familiar with don’t think that Jesus was an entirely fictitious entity. They think he was initially thought to be a spiritual entity revealed through scripture and personal revelation who was later incarnated, so to speak, in and by the gospel stories.
The Mormon religion has grown as fast, if not faster, than Christianity and is
based on a belief in a spiritual entity – the angel Moroni – and his revelations. Mormons were chased from one end of this continent to the other and some were killed for their beliefs. If that could happen with Mormonism, I don’t see why it couldn’t have happened with Christianity.
Bart Ehrman built a career demonstrating that the gospels are unreliable as history, so a lot of people were miffed when he dashed off a dismissive, frequently polemic work that could have been written by any apologist.
I personally wouldn’t characterize rolling with the consensus opinion against a reviled minority opinion as an act of courage.
A million such insults and comparisons to Holocaust denial, or whatever, do not equal even one poor argument against mythicism.
It seems Mr O’Neill prefers to read works that are well-researched, peer-reviewed and published by academic presses. If that’s true, then Richard Carrier’s latest should be right up his alley.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Richard Carrier wrote a post on the following website and here is a response:
Jesus Did Exist: A Response to Richard Carrier
Richard Carrier then made another post to which a response was given:
Four Reasons to Believe in Jesus: A Reply to Richard Carrier
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Why is Richard Carrier and other mythists more reliable than the mainstream of historical scholarship on the issue of the historicity of Jesus?
Bart Erhman has said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Why is Richard Carrier and other mythists more reliable than the mainstream of historical scholarship on the issue of the historicity of Jesus?
Bart Erhman has said:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism)
- Status