Is the Jesus of the Bible a historical figure: yes

Is the portrait of Jesus in the Bible an accurate one: it is a plausible one.

Those who deny that it is an accurate portrait do not use other contradictory portraits (to my knowledge at least), rather they use literature of the time to evaluate the historical credibility of the gospels and their assumptions about the metaphysical.

All you do is reproduce and summarize the same old arguments from Glenn Miller and JP Holding--two of the net's most fringe fundamentalists--so why should we see anything original or persuasive in your essay above?

Just to weigh in I think that Jesus was a historical figure but only because it's easier to explain the sudden rise of the Christian cult. It's certainly not because of the flaccid extra-biblical evidence that fundamentalists usually trot out.

checksum

Check

so because someone is labeled as a "fridge fundatmentalist": does that mean their arguments are invalid? Same if someone states a person is a radical atheist...does that negate their arguments?


Thanks for the reposnses everybody.

Actually, I would be interested to know if Checksum believes there is such a thing as a nonfringe fundamentalist. I get the impression that the two terms are synonomous. And if there is a difference, what distinguishes the fringe fundies from the mainstream fundies?

Mainstream fundies retreat when they're wrong. They don't disbelieve, but they quiet down.

Fringe fundies keep at it, frequently making assertions in all capital letters to make it sound important, and shifting the burden of proof.

That's the definition I use, anyway.

-Nick

Fair enough,

But if a fundie retreats on an issue you beleive they are wrong about, say inerrancy, then are they a fundy anymore? I always thought that all fundies believed in inerrancy. Many evangelicals do not, but all self-described fundies I know do.

Well there seems to be a difference between recognizing you are wrong and recognizing you can't make your position sound reasonable.

Odd as it sounds, it's a fairly common thing among the more laid back fundies in my experience.

We tend to assign the term fundie to the hardcore fundies that won't back down and insist the bible is inerrant, but the term also applies to those who simply believe it quietly.

Those are some harsh words you've spoken against Glenn and J.P. So what exactly is so unpersuasive about their arguments? Have you thought to answer J.P.'s "Chicken Challenge," where you take one of his essays (www.tektonics.org/Tekton_TOC.html) and refute it? I haven't been able to figure out why so many skeptics shy away from actually refuting him--instead of accusing him and those who read his work.

I am interested in hearing your response. Good day.

Toto

I think Ed Dougherty has made a good case that Jesus was a fictional character who epitomized a school of teaching. Check out his web site, http://www.jesuspuzzle.com

or buy his book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...351685-2982169

And Dennis McDonald makes it clear that Mark was a rewrite of Homeric myths, and cannot be considered a guide to actual history.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...erandmark.html

In short, maybe Jesus existed, but you can't prove it using normal historical methods.