Jesusbots: Help me out

Originally posted by telerion
Wow, David, you really drew out the weeds with this thread (a few are nice weeds though). Kudos. It's amazing how little xtians know of their own religion, especially given the sanctimonious tone of authority that they continually assume. To everyone who is trying to wave away David's questions with comparisons to Socrates and the like, remember that D ...[text shortened]... efore David's questions are quite pertinent. Do not pacify your frustration with laziness.

Here come the cheerleaders ...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here come the cheerleaders ...

It's called fellowship. 😛

Originally posted by darvlay
It's called fellowship. 😛

Wolves hunting in packs ... 🙄

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wolves hunting in packs ... 🙄

Don't start that again, Ivanhoe's been fairly well behaved of late, best to let sleeping dragons lie....

Originally posted by telerion
Wow, David, you really drew out the weeds with this thread (a few are nice weeds though). Kudos. It's amazing how little xtians know of their own religion, especially given the sanctimonious tone of authority that they continually assume. To everyone who is trying to wave away David's questions with comparisons to Socrates and the like, remember that D ...[text shortened]... efore David's questions are quite pertinent. Do not pacify your frustration with laziness.

You miss my point entirely, I think.

It is generally accepted that Jesus is a historical figure. The onus is to prove that he ISN'T.

Whether it is generally accepted that he is a deity or alive today is utterly irrelevant to this thread.

The only issue is the barest facts about Jesus - whether or not there was a man of that name who, around the year 30AD, spent around three years travelling through Palestine preaching, got himself into trouble and was put to death.

Originally posted by orfeo
You miss my point entirely, I think.

It is generally accepted that Jesus is a historical figure. The onus is to prove that he ISN'T.

Whether it is generally accepted that he is a deity or alive today is utterly irrelevant to this th ...[text shortened]... alestine preaching, got himself into trouble and was put to death.

Jesus is generally accepted without question as a historical figure by the ignorant masses. Their ideas are of little consequence as they generally have no solid grounds for making such claims.

Now among scholars of that time period and geographic region, the majority opinion is still that Jesus was a historical figure, however many dissenting opinions exist as well. Given this disagreement among experts ad populum appeals are entirely orthogonal to any intelligent discussion.

You believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a true historical figure. David wants to know why, given that there are some good reasons to think that he may be a mythological character. You should now provide the empirical evidence that makes you believe as you do and give reasons why you think David's hypothesis is weak. David has also given rebutals of some common responses (e.g. Tactitus, Josephus). Tell us why you think those rebuttals are insufficient to remove these examples as evidence for a historical Jesus, or acknowledge that they are not good evidence and provide some other source.

Just claiming that Jesus is generally accepted as a historical figure is a cop-out. You need to show why he is generally accepted as such and demonstrate that these reasons are solid. Nobody has to prove anything in a hard mathematical sense. Each side just needs to present the reasons for their case and let the chips fall where they may.

If the terms of proof were as you say, then nobody could criticize the majority opinion without first proving an alternative. That's ridiculous and anathema to good academic work. The point here is to think about why you believe something (historical or mythical) and hear other people's arguments for both cases.

Originally posted by telerion
Jesus is generally accepted without question as a historical figure by the ignorant masses. Their ideas are of little consequence as they generally have no solid grounds for making such claims.

Now among scholars of that time period and geographic region, the majority opinion is still that Jesus was a historical figure, however many dissenting opinions ...[text shortened]... without first proving an alternative. That's ridiculous and anathema to good academic work.

Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, they all mentioned Jesus as an historical figure.

I think there's enough evidence to show that such a person existed and that he had some role to play in an uprising of part of the populace. I think that you will be pressed to find historical records of the time claiming Jesus DIDN'T exist. If he didn't, it is logical to presume there would be records of the time claiming it was a fraud, considering the relatively fast uprise of Christianity.

If the majority of scholars are of the opinion Jesus was an historical figure, it is enough for me to place the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

Originally posted by Palynka
Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, they all mentioned Jesus as an historical figure.

I think there's enough evidence to show that such a person existed and that he had some role to play in an uprising of part of the populace. I think that you will be pressed to find historical records of the time claiming Jesus DIDN'T exist. If he didn't, it is logica ...[text shortened]... ure, it is enough for me to place the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, they all mentioned Jesus as an historical figure.

The references will need to be given so that they can be discussed.

I think there's enough evidence to show that such a person existed and that he had some role to play in an uprising of part of the populace.

Ok. See above.

I think that you will be pressed to find historical records of the time claiming Jesus DIDN'T exist. If he didn't, it is logical to presume there would be records of the time claiming it was a fraud, considering the relatively fast uprise of Christianity.

It is not surprising that we wouldn't find historical records claiming that Jesus did not exist. I don't see why the existence of some no-name from the Judea should be of any interest to historians of that time. Only much later when xtianity became widespread would any such article be of interest. I'm not sure what you mean by 'fast.'

If the majority of scholars are of the opinion Jesus was an historical figure, it is enough for me to place the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

Again with this proof crap. Nobody has to prove anything in this discussion. They simply have to support their hypothesis with evidence and give reasons to doubt the alternative. Historical Jesus and Mythical Jesus are both hypotheses. Let's give arguments for both. I think most people really don't have a clue why the scholars who put forth a historical Jesus do so and why scholars who instead support a mythical Jesus do so. That's what I want to see. Some honest discussion.

Originally posted by telerion
If the terms of proof were as you say, then nobody could criticize the majority opinion without first proving an alternative. That's ridiculous and anathema to good academic work. The point here is to think about why you believe something (historical or mythical) and hear other people's arguments for both cases.

Actually, that's precisely what good academic work is - to offer an alternative to established views. The alternative must either explain inconsistencies with established theories in known facts, fit known facts better than established theories or be a better theory (in whatever sense) than known ones.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, that's precisely what good academic work is - to offer an alternative to established views. The alternative must either explain inconsistencies with established theories in known facts, fit known facts better than established theories or be a better theory (in whatever sense) than known ones.

No, actually that is not entirely the case. Good academic work can be done along two avenues. You can come up with hypotheses/interpretations (or whatever is appropriate to your field) or you can carefully illustrate the weaknesses of current popular/dominant ideas and suggest where they need improvement or where there is room for other conceptions. Many of the great movements in different fields arose from a few of its rogue members criticizing the popular thought. Once the weaknesses were exposed, then alternatives were hypothesized.

Typically, the first avenue earns greater fame, but the second is also recognzied as being very important as the two really go hand-in-hand in the pursuit of greater knowledge. Again, if alternative hypotheses were not entertained until they had been proven, academic pursuits would grind nearly to a halt. The status quo would be practically unassailable.

In the end, the line from most of the pro-historical Jesus people in this thread has been first to repeat that they think somebody said something about it andsecond to appeal to the majority opinioin among experts, and thus choose to leave any criticisms to their position unaddressed. Instead they falsely claim that a dissenter must first prove an alternative. This is absurd, lazy, and generally deleterious to increasing understanding.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, they all mentioned Jesus as an historical figure.

The references will need to be given so that they can be discussed.

I think there's enough evidence to show that such a person existed a ...[text shortened]... s do so. That's what I want to see. Some honest discussion.[/b]

The references will need to be given so that they can be discussed.

Why? I have better things to do, until he presents some credible references I'll just ignore it. I don't feel the need to humour everyone with a crackpot theory. Look them up, if you are interested.


It is not surprising that we wouldn't find historical records claiming that Jesus did not exist.

Why not? He was probably the person with the most impact on Western history, if it was a conspiracy don't you think some detractors would write about the foolish Christians, following a non-existent Messiah?

If you don't think a little less than 400 years until achieving the status of dominant religion in Europe fast, I do.

Again with this proof crap. Nobody has to prove anything in this discussion. They simply have to support their hypothesis with evidence and give reasons to doubt the alternative.

I disagree, the arguments for an historical Jesus are well known and if someone wants to dispute them, then it is he who should bring forth new elements. I'm not about to indulge everyone that claims the earth is the center of the universe by even bothering to google up references.

That's what I want to see. Some honest discussion.

Bring forth some references and discussion can start. Until then, I don't think there's any discussion.

Ok. My wife just persuaded me to delete my last post. Guess I'm in a grump of a mood right now (even though things are going great on the research front!). Continue on. I'll go back to staying out of these forums.

Originally posted by Palynka
Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, they all mentioned Jesus as an historical figure.

I think there's enough evidence to show that such a person existed and that he had some role to play in an uprising of part of the populace. I think that you will be pressed to find historical records of the time claiming Jesus DIDN'T exist. If he didn't, it is logica ...[text shortened]... ure, it is enough for me to place the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

I've already addressed the Tacitus reference, Pal. It was added sometime between Tacitus' era and de Spire's printing of Annals in 1468 C.E.

Pliny's letters to Trajan only indicates that by 113 C.E., there were "Christians". Again, the veracity of these passages is very doubtful, given the source (Eusebius, once again).

Suetonius referred to a contemporary "Chrestus" who was causing trouble in Rome...not of some preacher in Palestine a century earlier.

Thallus is perhaps the weakest citation of these: See Carrier's debunkment of this reference.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

All four of these citations obviously are a product of the conspiracy at the close of the 2nd century and culminating in the farce at Nicaea.

If the majority of scholars are of the opinion Jesus was an historical figure, it is enough for me to place the burden of proof on those here that claim he did not exist.

How am I doing so far?

Originally posted by telerion
Ok. My wife just persuaded me to delete my last post. Guess I'm in a grump of a mood right now (even though things are going great on the research front!). Continue on. I'll go back to staying out of these forums.

Wuss. ;^)

Originally posted by David C
Wuss. ;^)

It's true. But my last post really was mean-spirited. Maybe I'll stick around and be your cheerleader.

Give me a D!