Anonymous
07/16/2019 10:30
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
As a man of faith, Father Alliata seems at peace with what archaeology can—and cannot—reveal about Christianity’s central figure. “It will be something rare, strange, to have archaeological proof for [a specific person] 2,000 years ago,” he concedes, leaning back in his chair and folding his arms over his vestments. “But you can’t say Jesus doesn’t have a trace in history.”
But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.
I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”
I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.
Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/
But before I begin my pilgrimage, I need to probe an explosive question that lurks in the shadows of historical Jesus studies: Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics—but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to literal earth.
I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”
I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.
Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/
Anonymous
07/16/2019 10:24
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So now finally historical Jesus is recognized! He walked the earth as a man.
He existed. He changed the world.
That’s what some believe. Still no evidence though...
His story is what changed the world.
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
There is not a standard of archeological evidence for anyone who lived 2,000 years ago. If you are insisting that is a standard- you are deluded.
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.
The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.
n one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate
Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.
Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”
Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Right. No first-hand, contemporary accounts. Just second-hand reports (likely from Christians). No evidence that he lived.
I'm not saying that he didn't. Just that we don't really know for sure. Agnostic on historical Jesus. Atheist on religious Jesus.
Doesn't really matter, but don't just assume he was a real person. His story (true or not) is the force that changed the world.
Anonymous
07/16/2019 10:18
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”
Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”
Wow. I didnt know this.
Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”
Wow. I didnt know this.
Anonymous
07/16/2019 10:13
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So now finally historical Jesus is recognized! He walked the earth as a man.
He existed. He changed the world.
That’s what some believe. Still no evidence though...
His story is what changed the world.
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
There is not a standard of archeological evidence for anyone who lived 2,000 years ago. If you are insisting that is a standard- you are deluded.
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.
The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.
n one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate
Tacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.
Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”
Ehrman says this collection of snippets from non-Christian sources may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Anonymous
07/16/2019 09:57
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
+1
Wouldn’t theologists consider the supernatural aspects?
But it’s certainly not the scientists who are investigating religious jesus. Just like they don’t investigate the existence of unicorns or Zeus.
You mean "theologians"? only those who are Christian apologists (theologians making a case for the divinity of Jesus) would do that. It's religious doctrine that tells people the beliefs they should hold to be a member of a particular religion or denomination. Some beliefs are supernatural (e.g., Jesus is the son of god) and some are behavioral (e.g., no birth control)
Anonymous
07/16/2019 09:37
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:So now finally historical Jesus is recognized! He walked the earth as a man.
He existed. He changed the world.
Any human, including you and me (because we have birth certificates) is recognized as having "walked the earth as a(hu)man".
Anonymous
07/16/2019 04:14
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:So now finally historical Jesus is recognized! He walked the earth as a man.
He existed. He changed the world.
That’s what some believe. Still no evidence though...
His story is what changed the world.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 22:36
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
So now finally historical Jesus is recognized! He walked the earth as a man.
He existed. He changed the world.
He existed. He changed the world.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 21:49
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
This. There seem to be a number of people on this thread conflating historical existence with proof of his being a deity. They're not the same. And it's not an attack on religion to discuss proof of historical existence. Such proof wouldn't prove anything with regard to religious claims anyway. Some people here can't seem to understand that.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt -- it's likely that they learned about "historical proof" of Jesus in a religious context that purposely did not differentiate between proof of existence and proof of being the deity. Jesus as son of god was something they had always believed and the scholar's efforts were presented as backing up this belief. But scholars do not opine on anything outside of academia, which supernaturalism is.
Could be that believers feel too foolish to admit it, once they learn that evidence of Jesus's existence is not the proof of his divinity that they were led to believe it is.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 20:26
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
+1
Wouldn’t theologists consider the supernatural aspects?
But it’s certainly not the scientists who are investigating religious jesus. Just like they don’t investigate the existence of unicorns or Zeus.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 20:22
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
This. There seem to be a number of people on this thread conflating historical existence with proof of his being a deity. They're not the same. And it's not an attack on religion to discuss proof of historical existence. Such proof wouldn't prove anything with regard to religious claims anyway. Some people here can't seem to understand that.
We don’t need to discuss historical existence-it’s agreed upon historical Jesus existed.
No, it’s not “agreed”. That’s really the only discussion topic about Jesus for atheists. Of course, he wasn’t the “son of god”. That’s a given.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 20:19
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
Ok. So?
I’m an atheist for religious Jesus. Agnostic for historical Jesus.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 18:38
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
This. There seem to be a number of people on this thread conflating historical existence with proof of his being a deity. They're not the same. And it's not an attack on religion to discuss proof of historical existence. Such proof wouldn't prove anything with regard to religious claims anyway. Some people here can't seem to understand that.
We don’t need to discuss historical existence-it’s agreed upon historical Jesus existed.
Anonymous
07/15/2019 18:36
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
+1
Anonymous
07/15/2019 18:28
Subject: Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still no proof.
Yes, there were early Christians. And there are Christians today. That still doesn’t mean there was a man named Jesus.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
VIRTUALLY ALL (real/actual/credible) SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY agree JESUS existed.
Ok. They have theories. And?
Still no proof. No archaeological artifacts. No contemporary evidence.
Maybe he lived. Maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
Many respectable scholars may agree Jesus existed, but they don't attempt to prove he's the son of god -- the supernatural is beyond the purview of academia.
This. There seem to be a number of people on this thread conflating historical existence with proof of his being a deity. They're not the same. And it's not an attack on religion to discuss proof of historical existence. Such proof wouldn't prove anything with regard to religious claims anyway. Some people here can't seem to understand that.