Good article on did Jesus exsist?

[tyder001]

Finally, and I am gonna stop cause arguing religion makes my head hurt. I do understand that some here have been abused by religion. I also understand that some just think of it as bunk. I have had some great discussions and will again I hope with Mike and Stoneheart and Trained and others. I have been bounced around by religion and religious folks a time or two myself. Somehow, I have managed to keep my "faith" in a purpose for life and death without holding on for dear life to myths and letter of the law. Finally, I have a life long inner life. I do understand that this side of death or the landing of a u.f.o. or a disaster that wipes out human life we will continue to have arguments and debates on reality. I can honestly say that although I have gotten my "my panties in a wad" as we say in the south. I have also always been able to step back and get over myself. So, for this particular debate I'm also done. I do think that it got off track a little but then again that is what makes it interesting around here. Now, I'm off to find another thread to be pissed off and to piss off other about.

 

[Kim323]

I agree, tyder, completely. I've already enrolled in a step program called "Grow Up and Come to the Conclusion that Life Doesn't Guarantee You Fairness, So Quit Trying.". It's got one step: "When you feel you ain't being treated the way you should by others, quit bellyaching, look in the mirror for good aim and give yourself a good slap, and then go have yourself one of your homemade brews.". But only one or you'll find yourself in a program with more than one step. Don't plan on joining that one. Anyway, I don't care if the sky falls, or even if mike wants to have the last word. He's probably as weary as I am over this (even though I HAVE knocked myself out reading everything he's posted), and deserves the last word. I've already posted to sand an fire to keep us updated on his UFO tour. Time to move on. I do want to thank you, really, tyder, for starting this thread. I've been a lurker too long on the forum and now at least I have some sort of presence. Kim

 

[stonehart]

Thanks Mate, though i can only take credit for the cut and paste.
I take no joy in debating this subject, i have a genuine affection for Kim, and while i must remain true to my pov on this subject, the cost weighs heavy on me.

Its a pattern thats repeated itself time and time again, i dont seem to be able to express my stance on this subject, without it hurting those who take the opposite view in the debate.
Its never been my intent to do so, but invariably it happens.

But i dont know what else i can do, the quote says it all.
There is little difference between myself and those i debate this subject with



And yet its cold comfort to both of us, when the cost is so often so high

My main reason for dropping the argument and backing off some is the rift that this area can cause between people who would otherwise get along fine.. I have been debating religion since I was at school and I am frankly over it, and the damage it can do to friendships, family's etc.

The bottom line is believe what the hell you want, be it pink pixies on the sun or blue giraffes on the moon I do not care right up until those religious ideals are forced on others or the religious yell and scream that they have the truth and their personal delusion is the one and only way.
There are only two truths I took away from my study of religion over the years as I see it ... and they are:

1. you can not all be right but you can all be wrong
2. spirituality is not the same as being religious

Well you get where the rest of my thinking is going so I will stop here ...I do not want to ignite the whole debate again.

 

[trainedobserver]

I would not have said word one had it not been for the following statement made in the original post.

But, the silly denial of the man himself is just ignorance.

 

[Bob Watson]

please provide for me 5 1st hand outside the bible refraces to jesus (MUST BE 1st hand)
please provide for me 5 discoverieys that prove he existed. (must be acompined by acreditation)

 

[stonehart]

please provide for me 5 1st hand outside the bible refraces to jesus (MUST BE 1st hand)
please provide for me 5 discoverieys that prove he existed. (must be acompined by acreditation)

Good luck and let me know if you ever find any.

 

[mike]

Again the data points clearly to a rehash of an older astro theological myth, not a real person

 

[stonehart]

I was going to stop yes I know but vesvehighfolk asked a question and I was going to post this before just to back Mike up (and yes I know Tyder I was not going to keep at this but for some reason I feel I should now).

"1: It can be shown that the bible and gospels are full of self contradicting passages, that these "errors" are indicative of the fallible word of man, and not the perfect word of god, as such imo it does not constitute proof in any way Jesus was real"

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcribers’ errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous (remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist).

"2: Elements of the Christ myth are reflected in earlier accounts and myths with such clear parallels that the rehash or cut and paste hypothesis seems the logical answer
The church admits and has an answer for this reality (the devil did it)"

Look we all know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan as are many if not all aspects of the biblical Jesus.
Horus comes to mind "Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptizer: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucified, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days."

Attis of Phrygia is another:

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savoir who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

and we know the rest as they have been mentioned here already.

"3:No contemporary accounts by the historians of the day mention a god/man raising the dead, an act that would at any time merit reporting"

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities/ Testimonium Flavianum) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay."

As such I quote.

"Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the Testimonium Flavianum would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus. In any event, it is quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Thus regarding the Testimonium Flavianum:
"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines...." (Remsburg, John, The Christ)

The dismissal of the passage in Josephus regarding Jesus is not based on "faith" or "belief" but on intense scientific scrutiny and reasoning (please do not trust the Wikipedia entry on this subject as it is far from accurate). Such investigation has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous scholars who were mostly Christian. The Testimonium Flavianum, Dr. Lardner concluded in none too forceful words, "ought, therefore...to be discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity." (Life of Lardner, Dr. Kippis, p. 23)

With such outstanding authority and so many scientific reasons, we can at last dispense with the pretentious charade of wondering if the infamous passage in the writings of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum is forged and who fabricated it. In fact theologians believe it was Eusebius who forged the passages when he re-wrote a copy of Josephus’ works immediately after the Council of Nicea (On the Canon of the New Testament, Dr. B. Westcott).

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room." (Gauvin, Marshall)

The forgery and re editing continued long after as the early church sort legitimacy through early historians by simply rewriting their works.

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.


Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.


Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

All of these historians work was edited by the church over the following century's so to ask for a firsthand account at this stage is simply not feasible but I am sure others will dispute this and the argument will go on.

 

[stonehart]

Final note:

That's it people I am out of this so peace to you all..

And Tyder it matters not what you believe or even if it is completely true in the historical sense for if it enriches your life then it is a good thing.
Even if Jesus did not exist or any of the other characters he is certainly based on there is a central truth to what they all said.

"Look after each other and do not exploit the weaker around you but just be a good person" that's it no mystery so who cares if these guys existed or not what has been attributed to them is what matters.

Peace all.

 

[CitizenK]

To get back to the original context of the thread regarding the book recently published.
Tyder and all others interested;
Bart Ehrman will be on Coast to coast tonight with Ian Punnett...if you would like to listen to his arguements, views, findings on the subject.
Here is a link to Ehrman's web site as well.
Professor Bart D. Ehrman - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor
Perhaps after listening to what the man has to say it will make for more "fair" arguements , as was pointed out, that we haven't read the book...(albeit it seems that many have previously done their homework and so further investigation is void) However, I too was recently painted as being narrow minded by some of you here for not reading many links provided to argue against something I have researched & believe/know to be a certain way...

 

[Kim323]

These contentions are made again and again: 1. Jesus did not exist. 2. The gospels are forgeries and the result of complicities and conspiracies among, well, who? 3. Christianity, over many centuries, is the result of the same (?), different (?) complicities and conspiracies and forgeries, and cleanups of the New Testament, culminating in Constantine convening the ragged, dirty bishops to create a new god and new religion for his own political purposes. 4. All the preceding contentions are based, ultimately (I guess, from what I can gather), on Jesus being made up out of whole cloth/thin air from Egyptian stories, Indian stories, etc., etc. unendingly. Wow, a lot of people over a lot of centuries spanning lots of cultures, languages, etc. really did quite a job (somehow). I was going to bring up what stonehart wrote about in the post above, in response to the question for some outside sources/references to Jesus, outside being outside of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It turned out stonehart mentioned them first, and for that I applaud him. So, the request from vesvehighfolk was for outside the Bible references. I did read stonehart's post. I read everything everyone has contributed. So here goes my list off the top of my head. By the way, the request was for references to Jesus, and what I want to establish is that Jesus EXISTED. I have striven mightedly to remain on topic in this thread. Again, I read stonehart, and applaud him, and no doubt will repeat some of what he wrote, but it will be my writing and words, with quotes only from the references themselves, not quotes demolishing the references. I wish we could write in our own words, our own thoughts, not just quote to suit. 1. Josephus wrote his Antiquities toward the end of the first century AD (the the late tens AD). He talks of John the Baptist, and of his prophecies and baptisms, and his execution when Herod ruled. He identifies James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." He talks of the important role that James played in the Jerusalem church in the middle first century. Josephus writes a paragraph about Jesus:
"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

2. The Talmud, hostile to Jesus, writes of a sexual scandal about Jesus's mother Mary. It says Jesus was "hanged" on Passover after a trial. He was executed "for leading the people astray," "apostasy," and "sorcery."

3. Suetonius, a Roman historian of the early one hundreds AD (second century AD) writes about the emperor Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome and gives the reason as "the instigation of Chrestus," the belief in Chrestus.

4. Pliny the Younger, the governer of the province of Bithynia in the Black Sea area, regularly wrote letters to the emperor Trajan early in the one hundreds AD. He writes of the Christians' activities and of their practice of singing songs "to Christ as to a god."

5. The Roman historian Tacitus, also early second century AD, wrote: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out, not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but also in the city, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular."

6. Lucian, a Roman writer of satires, lived from AD 120-180, and in The Passing of Peregrinus, writes of Jesus as "the one whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world....... their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws."

The points where these sources converge together are as follows: 1. the title Christos as a name (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny). 2. Jesus's location in Palestine/Judaea (Josephus, Talmud, Tacitus, Lucien). 3. his execution (Josephus, Tacitus, Talmud, Lucian). 4. the movement of his followers persisting and growing and carrying his name (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucien). 5. Jesus's death under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Josephus). 6. his death under Tiberius (Tacitus). 7. that Jewish leaders were involved in his execution (Josephus, Talmud). 8. that Jesus worked wonders (Josephus, Talmud). 9. Jesus was a teacher (Josephus, Talmud, Lucian).

 

[stonehart]

hahaha peace Kim you had to get the last word in

Peace and Happy Easter to you man I am not going to bite

 

[Kim323]

See, Stonehart, that was my whole point with Mike. You did not have time to read what I JUST posted. I was here, and you just skimmed it at best. You know, it's one thing to preach peace, and let's get along on this and that other contentious thread, but in the end you deride and ridicule the whole idea of religion. You and Mike subscribe to such a hodge-podge of mixed up stuff that, surely you know, but sadly, I suspect you don't, that culturally, statistically, historically, and on and on, you HAVE NO CONSISTENCY. It's all over the map, and above all: YOU TWO CUT AND PASTE AND QUOTE THOSE WHO DEMOLISH. Don't you have an actual thought conceived by your own brain after reading actual books and essays from respected scholars and historians? You just hunt around for stuff, weave and bounce around, ridicule openly and subtly, whichever at what time suits you best, and will not stick to the subject. Number One: Jesus did exist. Don't you realize how, just from a common sense perspective and a statistical perspective, what you and Mike "put forth," or rather, cut and paste voluminously, is on the face of it improbable, and that's letting you off easily. What's this, Kim, ha, ha, you got the last word. I was trying to just present evidence that Jesus existed, a good start. You can't respond to that, YOU can't. But you can hunt and peck and ridicule in your post, but even that's not you, it's others. Hey, I'm still in the game, but you can decide for yourself to leave if you want. But you and Mike can't even acknowledge that Jesus did exist on outside sources, and this is the firm consensus of respected historians. Kim

 

[mike]

Edit Dawsons when prophecy fails and faith persists. below

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Dawson-When-Prophecy-Fails-and-Faith-Persists.pdf

 

[CitizenK]

Here are the points Mr. Ehrman addresses; he claims there are...(aside from Jesus)
No other claims of resurrection.
No other claims of virgin births.
No other "gods" born on Dec. 25th.
No other claims of crucifixions of a "man god" or "divine man".
"Just a bunch of footnotes from others that these things happend but no offer of evidence in history...(ancient sources)"
He was "raised an Evangelical Christian, who entered into his field of astrology to be an evangelical scholar but then started to realize that most of what he'd been taught is probably wrong. He is trying to understand Jesus and Christianity from a historian's point of view. And that Jesus is not what we learned in Sunday school." Erhman claims "He [Jesus] was best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet that was saying that evil forces are at work here on Earth and God will soon intervene and that this would happen in his lifetime. To change the order of things here..."
"The Messiah of the Jews, pre-Jesus, was to be a hero to bring peace, but they ended up writing of a man who was crucified for his [false]claims to Messiah-hood,(according to the Jews). In the book of Isaiah 53, "the man who suffers for others" doesn't mention a messiah, so conflict between Christians and Jews begins here...in the Jewish opinion the Messiah is yet to come." He [Ehrman] admits "The crucifixion itself is limited to Christian sources alone. (Along with other men who were crucified the same day,the day before, and after him...) Though mainstream scholars agree with this event taking place without any other accounts... The resurrection account in the gospels (Paul,etc. ) claim him to be laid in a rich persons type grave tomb...which Mr. Erhman disagrees with, and furthermore does not believe even happen. Historically speaking there is nothing apart from "faith documents" to speak of it either. There are no accounts that this happened aside from some so called first hand claims of seeing him after death."

"The Passover plot" suggests he was given drugs on the cross to knock him out and "nothing in the records to suggest this either" [Ehrman]..."furthermore he allegedy had a spear stuck in his side by the Romans, but nothing in Romans records to tell of this event. The exodus of Rome mentions Jesus but this is 80 yrs. later after the fact..."

"Josephus also was never mentioned by the Romans either , so no reason they'd mention Jesus." (I/CitizenK, find this hard to believe) "It seems that he didn't make much of a splash in his own time to be written about in the records, it wasn't until 80 yrs. later that there is mention of him. " [Ehrman.] The 'Acts of Pilot' book was apparently a view of Jesus and his death by the pagans but we don't have that book." [Ehrman](?)

"The Council of Nicea was called into decide the argument of what it meant that 'Jesus was the son of God' debate between Jews and Christians". [Ehrman] , (meaning "co-existant and equal with God or not)... This debate has been going on for 1500 yrs. now with no resolution."
The Jordan codices that claim to show early Christian images with Jewish apocalyptic scriptures has not been viewed by Ehrman, he believes this to be not genuine , though they are claimed to be metal books that have survived on lead...just as the Dead Sea scrolls and others. Ian Punnett suggests and thinks it should 'peek' the interest of these scholars (like Ehrman) since it seems to be the only accounts of Jesus IN his era, but Ehrman insists it unlikely...

Ehrman admits similarities between Horus, Krishna, Osirus, etc. and claims that "you will always find similarities in anything. And claims that there are more differences than similarities" , but does not offer any at this time...He also claims "there is no written accounts of them in their alleged time of life here on Earth ".

His thought on the Shroud of Turin is that it is a "midevil forgery".

People have the idea that The Vatican is hiding something but Ehrman believes "that if this was the case we would know"....(?)

A caller says "You claim that no other ancient gods were born on Dec. 25th,but one was Saturnalia in Rome." And Ehrman ducks this by countering with "well usually ppl. argue that Mythra's was born on Dec. 25th and other pagan gods"... he then goes on to say something further regarding the Council of Nicea.

Ehrman says he is an Agnostic but doesn't believe in justice or evil existing anywhere but here in humans. He goes on to say that he "doesn't think we are punished in the after life for anything, that this is clearly something that stems from Christian beliefs"....
This is an incorrect statement , in my knowledge the Christians aren't the only ones who believe in punishment after death for your bad deeds...such as with Greek mythos, the Rosicrucians, Abrahamic religions, Anglicans, Ancient Egypt, Norse, Roman, Judaism, during th eage of enlightenment there was the theologian Swedenborg, Seventh Day Adventists, I could go on but I won't, it is rather off subject .

I have listened to his entire interview and have quoted verbatim where applicable. Now that we have his first hand accounts of his findings , what is your agreement or rebuttal ?

 

[tyder001]

I'm through with this one. But, I'm not mad at anybody it's just in my opinion we all have our views on this subject and nobody has changed anybodies mind. That's fine because a firmly held conviction should not disappear because of a few quotes or studies when there are legitimate (and there are) points on both sides. But CitizenK made a great point about being attacked by some here when the situation is almost the same thing. Once you have a worldview and your spirit and mind is at ease with that worldview it gets silly to follow link after link after link. It never stops. For every Rupert Sheldrake there will always be a Michael Shermer. For every James Randi there will always be a Chris O'brien Somewhere you have to say "Not that my minds made up" But. that I am either going to research myself or I already have. If I'm headed to the gulf coast today (and it's not that far from where I live) I can either go to the Gulf Coast or I can stop at every little mom and pop store on the way and ask for better directions. That will take me longer than going from the east coast to the west coast. At the point I decide I'm going to the Gulf Coast the only experts I need at that point will be the weather and news folks. Otherwise I'm good. So, just my two cents. I'm out of this one.
Jesus Lives,
Darwin rocks,

The thing you would not have done to yourself, do not do to others...The Buddha.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

When you look at all the 'historical' creations stories and floods etc there is no doubt that there are these core stories retold over time and re-branded for new religions.
Nothing new under the sun?

 

[trainedobserver]

Number One: Jesus did exist. ... But you and Mike can't even acknowledge that Jesus did exist on outside sources, and this is the firm consensus of respected historians. Kim

For the sake of discussion let's say that the story of Jesus in the New Testament was based on the life a real individual who actually lived.

Which Jesus existed though? The Jesus whose genealogy is presented as going back to Abraham, Adam, and God? The virgin-born Jesus of the account or a normally conceived person on whom the rest of the supernatural business has been superimposed? Where does one start and the other stop?

How are we to separate the true Jesus from the religious imagery and longing associated with him? Long years of intensive study of manuscripts and scholarly works? To what end?

Finally here is the most important question for me, "Why should we bother?" What is it in the words or deeds that are contained in the New Testament that would compel us to do so? What is it in the recorded words or deeds of the Jesus of the Bible that make his real existence something worth considering?

I'm sure see what I'm getting at Kim. Why would anyone care if Jesus (whichever one you care to pick) actually existed or not? Is that a fair question you think?

"To understand what Jesus was like, you have to put him in the 1st century Palestinian context."
- Ehrman from the recent Coast to Coast show. Kim, do you think that the literal interpretation of the New Testament "Jesus" does that?

Did the New Testament Jesus actually exist? All myth arguments aside, I still think it is very difficult to argue that that particular Jesus existed from any standpoint other than faith.

 

[Kim323]

I do see, Trained, what you are asking, indeed, and articulately put. Yes, to decide the importance to YOU (I mean, you as anyone) of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, takes it a step further. I was just trying to stick to the topic started by Tyder: did Jesus exist? And, lo and behold, we come full circle here to Tyder's bringing up the question as it related to Bart Ehrman. And, CitizenK, a superb job of listening to and relaying to us what you heard in Erhman's interview, I mean just superb. You researched, you must have taken some notes, you relayed it to us in your own words, just a great job, and I don't mean that condescendingly at all, teacher though I was for more than three decades, often teaching this very same stuff: history, the history of religion, the Reformation, etc. and all in a public school setting where overt religious views have to be avoided, and we stick to the facts. And that's just what I have tried to do here. Please, if you haven't, read my post above where I enumerated the very sources Vesvehighfolk specifically asked for. Stonehart also did, but in a demolish first attitude, with more than subtle ridicule, in my opinion. To answer Trained's question more, as it leaves the personal decision as to why establish Jesus's existence and then to make further decisions about Jesus as he is portrayed in the Gospels, we can indeed leave the personal and enter facts again: the evangelists themselves (the writers of the four Gospels) differed themselves as to EXACTLY what Jesus constituted. That forms part of the basis on which true study of the gospels AS HISTORY THEMSELVES, can be studied rationally, and historical cores to the events, for instance, Jesus is said to have performed, the "sorcery" mentioned by the Talmud, the "doer of startling deeds" written by Josephus. But that's a whole other area, another step. Right now, I think the question is still: Did Jesus exist? The answer is unequivocally yes, resoundingly so. To go further into scholarly studies, by, for instance, John P. Meier (no apologist) and many others, and even The Jesus Seminar, so popular in the nineties and still so, is the next step for a person who accepts the existence of Jesus, to determine as Trained asks, the SIGNIFICANCE of that TO YOU, is up to you, but I still maintain that intriguing conclusions have been reached by RATIONAL study of Jesus's exorcisms, miracles, and healings. Anyway, I don't want to drone on. Great and interesting reading, CitizenK. I haven't listened to Ehrman's interview, but will, but I have read his new book Did Jesus Exist? and while I have opinions about Ehrman as he fits in with other scholars I've read, I want to stick to that very topic, and link to HIS OWN ARTICLE about his book. I challenge Stonehart and Mike to read it. I realize I am actually POSTING A LINK! But I am. I'm not as technologically idiotic as this sounds, but I even wrote Gene to ask exactly how to post a link on this forum! Will Stonehart and Mike read it? I honestly doubt it, but if anything Ehrman does, it's directly confront the Christianity as myth movement specifically. It says nothing more than what I've said here, and I don't mean that pretentiously, but wow, Ehrman does a great job in his essay. I think Stonehart and Mike have read nothing I've suggested, or at least I know their replies sometimes came so fast with more cutting and pasting that they wouldn't have had time to read it. Have you read Mike Licona yet, Mike? And notice above how Mike's response to my post is to embed a video that does, well, what? I watched it, and what does it have to do with the ACTUAL topic we're discussing, beyond which we cannot move: Did Jesus exist? Mike and Stonehart have cut and pasted ad nauseam their inconsistent stuff. Read, everyone, this article.
Bart D. Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

 

[tyder001]

Great link Kim. ( Just when I thought I was out. They pull me back in. ) Seriously, that is a good article. The writer is not a Christian. He has some things in common with me. The true believer turned agnostic. Although, I'm not a true agnostic. I still find myself skeptical of Christian dogma. But, even at that I'm a Christian similar to the way Jesus was a Jew. By that I mean I have very different views than the fundi crowd and I think Christianity needs to evolve to survive. But, that's a whole different subject. I'm certainly NOT a religious scholar like the writer is and I pretty much know english and that is the extent of my language knowledge Well, that and some Spanish words here and there. I think religion as a whole is a lightning rod issue for some. I honestly think this author is making a secular point about ancient history not a religious point. Some have a hard time separating the two. I"m not being ugly here. Honestly, I've noticed that people draw very black and white lines in the sand when it come to politics (liberal,conservative) and religion. I'm not going to keep coming back and reading thread after thread on this. But, then again "I'm not god" (at least not with a big G) so it doesn't matter what I do with it. I'm good that Christ walked the earth within myself. What that means to me is an ongoing journey within. I think I'll have questions till the day I die. Then I will "know" or not!