So that's it for the election.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Alawen]

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?

You keep claiming mountains of evidence, when really all that exists are the gospels, Flavius Josephus and Tacitus. Here's the Testimonium Flavianum from Antiquities of the Jews Book 18:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus was an orthodox Jew. His father was a rabbi and his mother was Hebrew royalty. This is a guy who led Jews in the First Jewish-Roman War. Jesus, really Yeshua, was essentially executed for heresy. Do you believe for even one minute that passage wasn't heavily modified by Christian writers? I certainly do not and despite the radical Christian skew of the Wikipedia article, it is not hard to find a slew of antiquities academics who doubt along with me. Many of them have tried to reconstruct the passage. There is general consensus that what I posted is not the original text and at least some of it is later insertion. It is not much of a stretch that the entire passage is an insertion.

There's a short passage in Antiquities as well; it's not as blatantly not written by Josephus but given the major passage, it's not hard to doubt its authenticity.

Here's the passage from Cornelius Tacitus in Annals (heh):

...derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate...

There's no clear evidence of Christian editing here, but it's certainly possible. It's also not obvious if Tacitus is revealing entries from Roman records or repeating what Christians told him. There is strong reason to believe the latter as the passage has to serious errors. Pontius Pilate, who is documented in Roman records, was a prefect, not a procurator. Furthermore, Roman records would have given Jesus' surname, not his assumed religious title.

And that's it. That's your mountains of evidence. If you find reason to doubt either of those entries, which I obviously do, you're reduced back to the bible. None of these documents are contemporary to the alleged life of Christ. They all follow by at least decades. Apparently no one, not a Jew, not a Roman, saw fit to document miracles and large gatherings. In contrast, the life of John the Baptist is well-documented. Despite your ridiculous claims that Jesus' existence is rock solid, it's very flimsy. This is all there is.

But sure, paint me as a lunatic for being a rational critical thinker who understands primary sources and actually looks them up instead of linking Wikipedia pages that I just read for the first time.

Simpleton.

[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.

[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?