John W. Loftus

Enjoy this debate and chime in. It's a debate I'm involved in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

Toto

The format of that debate is hard to follow. I gave up after clicking on a few posts, since it didn't seem that anyone has anything new to say. Is there a way of displaying the posts in a message board type format? Or could you point out anything of particular interest?

Jayrok

Agree with Toto.. the debate is hard to follow in that format.

The following quote is taken from one of Frank Zindler's entries in the debate:


"The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting."


Is there anything to this claim? I've read other commentaries that say Vossius had a copy of Josephus that did not contain the passage on Jesus, but that is all I could find -- the claim. Is there an article available that discusses this manuscript somewhere?

GakuseiDon

I agree with Toto. The format is difficult to follow. It would be better if responses could be combined into the one thread.

Ben C Smith

Check out this old thread.

Ben.

Toto

Yes, I just located that thread, and if Zindler is still using the Vossius argument, he has not been paying attention.

Jayrok

Thank you, Ben.

spin

I'm bemused about this "Verified Expert" crud, especially when they don't seem to know much about doing history at all. Verified by whom? Expert in what?

More importantly does anyone understand the notion of a "verified witness"? One doesn't let just anyone provide testimony in a court case. There has to be a way of verifying testimony. There is no "presumption of truth unless shown otherwise". There is only "make your case based on evidence". Bernstein and Woodward had to test the veracity of Deep Throat, so too do those who would like to use the gospels as historical sources.


spin

John W. Loftus

I agree with everyone about the format. It is indeed hard to follow. They have some kind of standard for what makes a person a verified expert, but what it is I don't know. It's just that not anyone can debate anything. They want people with degrees, books, or people they consider "important" for one reason or another to debate the issues, that's all.

aa5874

You claim that textual evidence is good evidence, yet you ignore all the good textual evidence that clearly depicts Jesus as a myth.

Why is that?

The textual evidence claimed Jesus was concieved of the Holy Ghost and was born of a virgin, tempted on the pinnacle of the Temple, raised a man from the dead after four days, was transifugured, brought some prophets, dead for hundred of years, back to life, resurected and ascended through the clouds as witnessed, all these are good textual evidence for a myth.

You cannot ignore the best textual evidence and then use your belief as a substitute. Your belief cannot match the good textual evidence that Jesus was a myth.

Eusebius, and the church writers all use the very same good textual evidence to claim Jesus was Divine.

And, by the way, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny never mentioned the word Jesus at all in their writings.