Doctor X

Indeed. This has been a problem with biblical scholarship--an assumption that "this must be true and must make sense."

I am happy to see that Peter Kirby includes in his list the book, Archaelogy and the Bible, John C. H. Laughlin, Routledge which notes:

Thus so with the NT texts. Furthermore, even questioning details about Junior and his Merry Men seems to undercut cherished beliefs.

However, that is what the study of history is about.

--J.D.

Farrell Till

There is no resurrection prophecy. Luke had Jesus telling his disciples that it had been "written" that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead the third day (Luke 24:45). If this had been "written," it would have been in the Old Testament, since none of the NT had been written at that time. I defy any Bible believer to produce the OT prophecy that the Messiah would rise on the third day. In fact, I defy any Bible believer to produce the OT prophecy that the Messiah would rise, period.

Doctor X

J.F.:

Oh . . . ye of little faith . . . I just randomly place my finger in the OT--a finger clearly directed by the Hand of Merlot--and I find:

1 Sam 13:14-15

Well, clearly Sips some more merlot the Lord admonishes the "old" regime of Judaism in the first century and announces that a NEW KING will come!

And what KING are we talk'n about?

[Cue Sounds of Crickets Chirping in the Cold Clear Night.--Ed.]

AND then "Samuel arose" CLEARLY prophecizes the RESURRECTION!!!! [!--Ed.]

Now, I have some wonderful property off of the coast of Florida you may be interested in . . . unlimited water supply. . . .

--J.D.

Volker.Doormann

Emancipate.

Volker

Soul Invictus

Wow. Greetings J.F. Till....a new user to the boards, but not new to the game, aye?

Right out the gate, a challenge to Magus55 aye? Should be interesting dialogue if something develops...

Rational BAC

Well ---I was wrong.

From reading so many posts by atheists, previous to starting this thread, claiming that there was no historical basis for Jesus's physical existance (forget the God part) I just assumed (since it was never contradicted by any atheist on this forum that I noticed) that the non-existance (historically speaking) of Jesus was univerally accepted by all atheists.

I find out I was mistaken. Many atheists do believe that there was a historical Jesus. -----------of course they are quite free to debate whether Jesus was a deity or a phony. But at least they agree that He existed.

It just goes to show you that everyone ----------------------------theists and non-theists alike will give a pass to their own. Say almost anything you want as a theist, even if everyone else knows it is not true. and no theist will contradict you. Say almost anything you want as a non-theist, even if everyone else knows it is not true, and no non-theist will contradict you.

It does seem that we all tend to watch out for and protect others in our group. "Cut 'em some slack. Give 'em a pass."

But is that intellectually honest for either side?

Soul Invictus

I'd say no, however alliance to an affinity in thinking is a human tendency

Toto

I don't think you understand.

Most atheists have no reason to care very deeply one way or another whether there was a non-divine historical Jesus.

German mythicists started the Jesus myth theories in 19th century Germany. Then the mythicist position fell out of favor, and most people assumed that there was a historical Jesus somewhere behind the myths.

Now the ball is swinging back the other way, as a few scholars have made a coherent case for the establishment of early Christianity without a human Jesus as the start. The historicists have not come back yet with a good rebuttal. The case that Christians have made for a historical Jesus rests on some very dubious documentation and laughable arguments.

So a lot of us here are Jesus-agnostics. There isn't enough evidence to really prove that a person named Jesus or something like that was crucified and started the Christian religion, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that he didn't.

First of all you wanted us to cut Jesus some slack. Now you don't think we should cut some slack for our fellow atheists. Make up your mind.

Do you have some new argument to make about the existence of Jesus?

Peter Kirby

If you look at the poll, you will see that there is no universal atheist position (neither pro nor con). Atheists are divided on whether he existed--and agree that "He" (the deity) did not exist. If you could demonstrate the historical existence of Jesus as a man, that would be of great interest to many people on this board.

Nonsense! I am often expressing disagreement with other non-theists, and other non-theists often disagree with what I say.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rational BAC

I just started this thread to learn something. I am no Biblical scholar. I wish I could add something very scholarly to add to the discussion, but I can't.

I had assumed since I had seen so many posts stating the position that there was no historical evidence for Jesus that it was probably true. (and to be fair about it, no one ---either theist or non-theist ever bothered to refute the notion---------at least in the fairly short time I have been on this forum).

I figured it most likely a slam dunk for the atheists on this one, and is why I said in the original post I expected it to be a very short thread.

I was surprised that the issue was a very controversial one. And that there was no real agreement on the subject.

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that this whole thread smelled like a set up. Trust me----it was not a set up in any way. I started out simply to learn something. And I did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that you sometimes disagree with other non-theists on various subjects. I also disagree with Fundies on many subjects.

I also admit to many times just "giving Fundies a pass" since we are essentially on "the same side." I think it is somewhat intellectually dishonest of myself to do so.

However, my save on that is that I figure I don't have to ----------there are so many atheists on this forum who can argue the case better than I can and are quite happy to do so---------that it is not worthwhile for me to bother with it.