Dave31

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion. There's nothing to corroborate the story outside of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. Lets face it, there's no evidence to demonstrate the character in the bible named Jesus ever existed. It's much more reasonable to conclude the story is a myth.

Dawkins should view this video and read the book before assuming Jesus existed.

"Who Was Jesus?" VIDEO
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3...prints-of.aspx

Doug Shaver

The evidence does not convince you that he existed.

It does not convince me, either, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

aa5874

But what evidence is there of Jesus that does not convince you? And where exactly do you find this evidence?

I am yet to find anyone who have any evidence to support the hypothesis that Jesus was only human, except to say, it is possible Jesus existed, but this statement has no evidentiary value.

thedistillers

As a public personality and prominent scientist, Dawkins has to be careful with what he says. What would be the point for him to endorse a position supported only by a minority of scholars? Surely if you're going to go against a majority of scholars, you need to be very educated on the issue. Dawkins is not. If he would take the MJ position, then people would constantly bring it up and Dawkins would end up being perceived as either an idiot or a crackpot.

Secondly, whether or not there is evidence to "demonstrate" Jesus existed is subjective. First, if there was no evidence at all as some people here claim, then we would not have this discussion. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence, but how credible the evidence is. Dawkins does not have the qualification and knowledge to assess the evidence, so he just goes with the scholar consensus. Maybe if creationists would have the same attitude, we wouldn't have to deal with ignorant BS on a daily basis.

Dave31

When do we get to be honest and just admit that there exists no evidence for the Jesus Christ character in the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny?

All I've ever heard are the repetitive claims, "Oh, there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence for Jesus." Or the, "well there's no scientific evidence but I still believe..."

If there were any evidence to support the claims, FAITH would not be the main requirement. What is THE very best EVIDENCE for the existence of the character in the bible known as Jesus Christ?

thedistillers

That's not true. Faith is defined as trust; it does not exclude evidence. Even with excellent historical evidence, we would still require faith to put fully our trust on a person that took the human form 2000 year ago.

Peer review? Scientific scrutiny?

aa5874

And further, the Jesus of the NT was a God, that is, all the information about Jesus described him as a God, in effect, there is no information whatsoever for the historical Jesus anywhere.

No one can say when the human only Jesus was born, the name of his parents, if he was a Jew, if he was crucified or how he died, his age at death, or where he was buried.

There is just no evidence or information anywhere in the NT for a Jesus who was just human and not a God.

spamandham

I completely agree. He is doing what is prudent for a man in his position, which is to find common ground from which to make his points, rather than latching onto a public position which would so easily discredit everything else he has to say.

He may or may not really believe Jesus was historical. ....more likely , he just doesn't really care. That isn't his area of expertise nor does it impact any points he makes, nor does it even appear to be a hobby for him.

Doug Shaver

I gave you a good answer the first time you asked me that question. You ignored me then, and I have no reason to think you'll pay any more attention now.

aa5874

I have no resaon to think you really have evidence.