An historian's view on Jesus

[+Link of Hyrule]

History shows Jesus really lived

I hope this is the last article I ever have to write on the question of whether Jesus ever lived.

As Christmas approaches, there are bound to be media pieces raising doubts about some aspect of the Jesus story, and some might say he never lived at all. It has already started with the widely reported statistic from the UK suggesting that 40 per cent of England doesn’t believe Jesus was a real figure. The BBC broke the news with the headline “Jesus ‘not a real person’, many believe.”

Maybe the English were influenced by atheist intellectual Richard Dawkins, who famously wrote in The God Delusion that a “serious” historical case can be made that Jesus never lived. He cites G.A. Wells as his sole example – who turns out to be a professor of German language. In later debates Dawkins publicly admitted (to his credit) that he exaggerated the scholarly possibilities and that there isn’t really any doubt among historians about the existence of Jesus. Even G.A. Wells recently came out with a book conceding he was probably wrong to argue in his earlier book that Jesus never lived.

Still, the popular sceptical confusion is real. Somehow the “sceptinet” is abuzz with claims of a “shift” in recent scholarship towards doubting the historicity of the figure at the heart of Christianity. That would be convenient for debunkers of Christianity, but unfortunately for them, it turns out to be complete rubbish.

Source for full article and further reading

I was particularly intrigued by what Dickson wrote a few paragraphs in:

I have had a challenge going for several years now. I’ve tweeted it, Facebooked it, and last year I even published the challenge in an article for ABC’s The Drum. It goes like this: If someone can find even just one full professor of classics or ancient history or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who believes Jesus did not live, I will eat a page of my Bible.

If anyone wants one of my favourite theologians, historians, and authors to literally eat Matthew chapter 1, take up the challenge I don't think Richard Carrier is employed by any university, so he is disqualified, though if I'm wrong then pop an email off to Dickson and he'll be chowing down on his Bible for Christmas breakfast (that would be ironic, I think).

I admit I probably won't be too active in this thread. Apart from being utterly sick of being the only Christian participating in such a debate with at least three or four sceptics who I admit are more than likely better debaters than I am (I won't mention names, they know who they are), it's coming up on Christmas and I don't anticipate a lot of time on the forums over the next few days.

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, naturally the Beeb (who frankly I'm surprised actually allow the word "Christmas") would be skeptical. Like I said in another thread, it's quite simple really; if you don't believe that Jesus even existed, whether or not you accept any of the claims about him being Son of God and so on, don't celebrate Christmas, whether or not you choose to call it "Festive Seasonal Holiday" or whatever. (If you're a Pagan, of course, then you can quite legitimacy celebrate Yule or Solstice, of course.)

Happy Christmas* to you by the way, PA.

* i said it again

[Guest Br Cornelius]

You really haven't done anything more than repeat yourself here PA. this has been addressed many times and dragging out another Minister (yes John Dickson is a christian minister as well as a historian who plainly states on his website that his primary mission is the promotion of christianity) does nothing to change the the fact that he is entitrled to have his faith based opinion just as we are entitled to disagree withg that opinion.

Its firmly back to square one again.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 24, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[+and-then]

It actually makes me smile on this Christmas eve that yet again his existence is denied. If Jesus is actually a non person then the story of his life has had more of a positive impact on this world than most for whom there is abundant proof of existence. No small accomplishment Merry Christmas to you Brutha. And I really mean that.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Well, naturally the Beeb (who frankly I'm surprised actually allow the word "Christmas") would be skeptical. Like I said in another thread, it's quite simple really; if you don't believe that Jesus even existed, whether or not you accept any of the claims about him being Son of God and so on, don't celebrate Christmas, whether or not you choose to call it "Festive Seasonal Holiday" or whatever. (If you're a Pagan, of course, then you can quite legitimacy celebrate Yule or Solstice, of course.)

I will be celebrating Xmas for exactly the same reason as Northern europeans have been celebrating since before neolithic times - because it represents a pivotol time of year when the SUN returns after its shortest day and the days start to lengthen once again. I care not a fig that a bunch of johny come lately cultists manipulated their calender in an attempt to userp the oldest festival in human history.

We celebrate this festival because of its inate physical truth and that is as relevant to any secularist as it is to any theist.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 24, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Holmesian]

Again rather than a presentation of the overwhelming evidence in favour of the historical Jesus we are back to this is what everyone says. This doesn't seem any different to the previous thread on this and I don't think I can add anything further.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Again rather than a presentation of the overwhelming evidence in favour of the historical Jesus we are back to this is what everyone says. This doesn't seem any different to the previous thread on this and I don't think I can add anything further.

Because there is nothing to add until some actual historic evidence emerges.

Br Cornelius

[eight bits]

Norbert

The conventional English-language name of the day is Christmas. Like any other word, I'll use it because it is likely to be understood by my listener or reader.

Two days ago, I wished people a happy solstice. The sun doesn't actually stand still, it is simply the name for the day.

To say "Merry Christmas" is to wish you a happy day, not to confess a religion or to invite a theological debate.

Merry Christmas, Norbert.

PA

The academic consensus has been talked to death. I really don't care what your professors believe or disbelieve when I evaluate this loaded historical fact claim. If they have some evidence I haven't considered, then bring it on. Please.

Whoever does not at least concede the uncertainty of the matter, and the serious possibility that the consensus is wrong, holds their belief based on something besides or in addition to scholarship. I have produced ample evidence in other threads that that "something" exists and is widespread. My work is done here.

Merry Christmas, PA (and to Anne, and her dog).

Merry Christmas, too, to Bro' C and Holmesian, and lo, even unto the band of Christian apologists. To all, then.

[Davros of Skaro]

Once again PA goes for the "Argument from authority" fallacy. He also admits that even if the consensus changed to nonhistory he would still believe.

The secular consensus agrees that the Gospels are wildly fictitious, and this is not just the miracle claims in them. They hold that a kernel of truth is in them. They see the nonpseudographic letters of Paul are talking about a real person.

When you add further scrutiny. The Gospel of Mark which is the first Gospel (this is not fringe, but a position held by most scholars) shows blatant signs of literary fiction. The unknown (all four are unknown) author uses ancient Greek techniques of story telling, which is opposite of recording history. Mark is one giant parable within parables to convey Theology. The later Gospels put their own spin on Mark. Matthew for example corrects geographical, and Jewish Theological mistakes that Mark makes. John (the last Gospel) nearly derails the other Gospels, but it's popularity at the time made it included in the canon.

The letters of Paul when placed under scrutiny shows that he had no knowledge of an Earthly Jesus. His Jesus is derived by selected verses (taken out of context) in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), and hallucinations. The prominent New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman always poins out t that Paul met the brother of Jesus named James. The thing is Paul calls everyone baptised in Jesus a fictive kin in a spiritual family (he makes no biological distinction with James). When apologists point at certain wordings by Paul for an Eartly Jesus they overlook Paul's use of allegory, and the literal Greek translation.

If everyone took an honest look at the evidence for Jesus? They would be Agnostic on his historicity. Paul does not know about Mary, Joseph, virgin birth, or anything Earthly. Paul is talking about a celestial being. The Gospels use a historic background, but have trademarks of myth making.

If people regarded Jesus as the ancient Roman state God Romulus (who was born of an impregnated virgin by a God) as obvious fiction instead of using kid gloves? We would not have this debate.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Merry Christmas, PA (and to Anne, and her dog).

Lol, Annie is the dog, I haven't actually shared my partner's name here on the net. But Merry Christmas to you, and to everyone else reading this thread

[Holmesian]

Norbert

The conventional English-language name of the day is Christmas. Like any other word, I'll use it because it is likely to be understood by my listener or reader.

Two days ago, I wished people a happy solstice. The sun doesn't actually stand still, it is simply the name for the day.

To say "Merry Christmas" is to wish you a happy day, not to confess a religion or to invite a theological debate.

Merry Christmas, Norbert.

PA

The academic consensus has been talked to death. I really don't care what your professors believe or disbelieve when I evaluate this loaded historical fact claim. If they have some evidence I haven't considered, then bring it on. Please.

Whoever does not at least concede the uncertainty of the matter, and the serious possibility that the consensus is wrong, holds their belief based on something besides or in addition to scholarship. I have produced ample evidence in other threads that that "something" exists and is widespread. My work is done here.

Merry Christmas, PA (and to Anne, and her dog).

Merry Christmas, too, to Bro' C and Holmesian, and lo, even unto the band of Christian apologists. To all, then.

Thank you for wishes and Merry Christmas to you as well 8 Bits.

[+Link of Hyrule]

he is entitrled to have his faith based opinion

Yes he is. And if you want to see his faith-based opinion lead to him literally eating a page from his Bible, email him an historian of Classics or Ancient History or New Testament who is employed in any accredited university in the world that disagrees with that faith-based opinion, and he'll do it. I'll seriously laugh too. I almost sent him an email with Richard Carrier's contact details just for the lol's, but realised he didn't meet the criteria presented by Dickson (not employed by a university).

Does Robert Price count? I'd be interested to see that one, though from what I know, Price is employed by a small independent seminary and not a university, so it might not count either.

That's all this entire thing needs - just one full scholar, employed by an accredited university. And this isn't even including JUST New Testament scholars or biblical scholars, any scholar in Ancient History will do, based on the criteria.

That's the main difference between this thread and other recent threads like it. We don't need to discuss the evidence, we just need one single scholar, employed by a university and who fits one of the three areas noted by Dickson. And he'll eat his Bible (well, a page of it, at least). One. Single. Scholar. Considering that even in the field of New Testament scholarship, 10% of them aren't Christian, but more broadly the field of "ancient history" (rather broad category there) if it's a serious issue then shouldn't someone be there to point to and say "hey, this is a thing".

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Yes he is. And if you want to see his faith-based opinion lead to him literally eating a page from his Bible, email him an historian of Classics or Ancient History or New Testament who is employed in any accredited university in the world that disagrees with that faith-based opinion, and he'll do it. I'll seriously laugh too. I almost sent him an email with Richard Carrier's contact details just for the lol's, but realised he didn't meet the criteria presented by Dickson (not employed by a university).

Does Robert Price count? I'd be interested to see that one, though from what I know, Price is employed by a small independent seminary and not a university, so it might not count either.

That's all this entire thing needs - just one full scholar, employed by an accredited university. And this isn't even including JUST New Testament scholars or biblical scholars, any scholar in Ancient History will do, based on the criteria.

That's the main difference between this thread and other recent threads like it. We don't need to discuss the evidence, we just need one single scholar, employed by a university and who fits one of the three areas noted by Dickson. And he'll eat his Bible (well, a page of it, at least). One. Single. Scholar. Considering that even in the field of New Testament scholarship, 10% of them aren't Christian, but more broadly the field of "ancient history" (rather broad category there) if it's a serious issue then shouldn't someone be there to point to and say "hey, this is a thing".

As we have discussed many times before this is totally irrelevant and is irrelevant due to the way that such academics are selected. There are almost no really secular Biblical scholar and those that are have been selected by believers to be not to controversial to accepted dogma. Find me a Biblical studies department in an acredited University which isn't run by a believing christian and I might take Dickson a tiny bit more seriously. Dicksons histrionics are just that - and he's a rather poor academic scholar to boot.

Br cornelius

[Mr Walker]

I was particularly intrigued by what Dickson wrote a few paragraphs in:

I have had a challenge going for several years now. I’ve tweeted it, Facebooked it, and last year I even published the challenge in an article for ABC’s The Drum. It goes like this: If someone can find even just one full professor of classics or ancient history or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who believes Jesus did not live, I will eat a page of my Bible.

If anyone wants one of my favourite theologians, historians, and authors to literally eat Matthew chapter 1, take up the challenge I don't think Richard Carrier is employed by any university, so he is disqualified, though if I'm wrong then pop an email off to Dickson and he'll be chowing down on his Bible for Christmas breakfast (that would be ironic, I think).

I admit I probably won't be too active in this thread. Apart from being utterly sick of being the only Christian participating in such a debate with at least three or four sceptics who I admit are more than likely better debaters than I am (I won't mention names, they know who they are), it's coming up on Christmas and I don't anticipate a lot of time on the forums over the next few days.

I know you don't count me a Christian, but as an historian, i fully support your view here, and have done so in many long and well cited posts . Jesus is clearly recognised by the academic world as an historical figure, while his mythological state is not.

The best argument for his existence is the contextual continuity of Christianity from the time of his death into the first century after that death he was followed and worshipped by people who would have KNOWN he wasn't real if he had not been, and churches of the Christian faith (although in part still Jewish in worship form) were existing across a wide area a couple of decades after his death.The man who provides this continuity and who is totally accepted as a historical figure, is saul/paul

Finally, within a few decades of his death, Christians are clearly recorded in Rome/.Roman records as separate from Jews, and by the late 80s, fifty years after Christ's death, they have a special tax imposed on them to differentiate them from Jews in the Roman tax system. . This reflects the number and wealth of Christians by this time within the Roman empire, and fits the likely timeline for the first written versions of the gospels which would have separated Christ from his Judaic roots, and strengthened Paul's push to make Christianity more suited to greco roman (Hellenic) gentiles. .

History is not a discipline, like mathematics with absolute answers , but it IS an academic discipline, and it has rules and procedures and rigour. The fact that almost EVERY academic historian including total athiests,, accepts the historical existence of Christ as a jewish scholar and teacher, who taught a liberal variant of judaism of the time, was born around 3 BC, baptised by John the baptist, and crucified about 30 years after his birth, has NOTHING to do with belief or religion, and everything to do with the historical contexts and evidences around his life.

Atheist historians, in general, do not deny his historical existence, because to do this would not be historically acceptable to their colleagues, and the rules of their profession. So for any layman to do so, goes against the rules of historical procedure in a way that a professional historian would be very reluctant to do, unless he/she was seeking publicity through controversy

Edited December 24, 2015 by Mr Walker

[GlitterRose]

I think part of the reason that most religious scholars accept the historicity of Jesus is that most of them are religious. I think if they would truly look at it with unbiased eyes, they might be able to at least entertain the idea, let alone actually put their hearts into researching it. Right now it just seems like that's not possible in academia.

I'm fine with Jesus whether he existed or not. I do think that many of the sayings attributed to him, while also being found in other religions, are still awesome. I also think if other people were this indifferent about his historicity...and maybe just paid more attention to the overall message of love, there probably wouldn't have been atrocities committed over Christianity.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTgtHQxfTJAhWCbiYKHfCdAmEQFggfMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fposteverything%2Fwp%2F2014%2F12%2F18%2Fdid-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up%2F&usg=AFQjCNEui3g4Zoiupa-t_t4hongmrOjT0g

Edited December 24, 2015 by ChaosRose

[Mr Walker]

As we have discussed many times before this is totally irrelevant and is irrelevant due to the way that such academics are selected. There are almost no really secular Biblical scholar and those that are have been selected by believers to be not to controversial to accepted dogma. Find me a Biblical studies department in an acredited University which isn't run by a believing christian and I might take Dickson a tiny bit more seriously. Dicksons histrionics are just that - and he's a rather poor academic scholar to boot.

Br cornelius

Francesca Stavrakopoulou (born October 3, 1975 in Bromley, London with an English mother and a Greek father) is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion in the University of Exeter's Department of Theology and Religion. The main focus of her research is Israelite and Judahite history and religion.

She is noted for her academic and media roles: presenting a three-part television series on the BBC The Bible's Buried Secrets (2011; not to be confused with the 2008 NOVA programme of the same name), and for contributions to Channel 4's series The Bible: A History. She describes herself as "an atheist with huge respect for religion" and regards her work as "a branch of history like any other". She has often been quoted as believing many of the Bible's major characters are merely fabrications created by ancient writers who "had a different understanding of what was fact or fiction."^[1][2][3][4]

Richard Dawkins would do well to look at the skills imparted by the Theology department of his own alma mater, Oxford (also my own). The BA I did at Oxford was a completely secular program, attracting students from all over the religious spectrum. My classmates included a would-be priest who ended up an atheist, as well as a militant atheist now considering the priesthood. During my time there, I investigated Ancient Near Eastern building patterns to theorize about the age of a settlement; compared passages of the gospels (in the original Greek) to analogous passages in the Jewish wisdom literature of the 1st century BC; examined the structure of a 14th-century Byzantine liturgy; and read The Brothers Karamazovas part of a unit on Christian existentialism. As Oxford's Dr. William Wood, a University Lecturer in Philosophical Theology and my former tutor, puts it: “theology is the closest thing we have at the moment to the kind of general study of all aspects of human culture that was once very common, but is now quite rare.” A good theologian, he says, “has to be a historian, a philosopher, a linguist, a skillful interpreter of texts both ancient and modern, and probably many other things besides.” In many ways, a course in theology is an ideal synthesis of all other liberal arts: no longer, perhaps, “Queen of the Sciences,” but at least, as Wood terms it, “Queen of the Humanities.”

You can find lots of similar sources My point here is not to refute your claim but to question its validity. Biblical studies is no longer (and has not been for a reasonable time) the sole (pun intended) province of theists or believers. Biblical studies is subject to the same procedural rules and rigours as any history department and contains people of all types; theists agnostics and atheists. Biblical archaeology and biblical history are NOT just studies of the bible but historical studies of the times and places relevant to the bible.

Hector Avalos (born October 8, 1958) is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University and the author of several books about religion.^[1] He is a former Pentecostal preacher and child evangelist.^[2]

He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University (1991), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School (1985), and a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from the University of Arizona in 1982.

Avalos is an internationally recognized opponent of neo-creationism and the intelligent design movement, and is frequently linked to Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist and proponent of intelligent design who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007. Avalos co-authored a statement against intelligent design in 2005, which was eventually signed by over 130 faculty members at Iowa State University. That faculty statement became a model for other statements at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa.^{[citation needed]} Gonzalez and Avalos are both featured in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed(2008).

Avalos is an atheist activist and advocate of secular humanist ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Avalos

Edited December 24, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The fact that the head of Department at Oxford is Johannes Zachhuber, a Christian, rather refutes this assertion and supports mine.

Br Cornelius

[Podo]

Even if Jesus did exist, it doesn't actually mean anything. Him having been real doesn't mean he had any magical powers, nor does it mean that he was anything special. If he was real, it's far more likely that he was a child born of a whorish mother who lied about "divine conception" to avoid punishment for sex out of wedlock, and was charismatic enough to trick a horde of peasants into believing that there was some kind of life after death.

[+Link of Hyrule]

As we have discussed many times before this is totally irrelevant and is irrelevant due to the way that such academics are selected. There are almost no really secular Biblical scholar and those that are have been selected by believers to be not to controversial to accepted dogma. Find me a Biblical studies department in an acredited University which isn't run by a believing christian and I might take Dickson a tiny bit more seriously. Dicksons histrionics are just that - and he's a rather poor academic scholar to boot.

Br cornelius

And as Dickson noted, this isn't just about scholars in New Testament or Biblical studies. Dickson presented three groups of people whose expertise he would accept. New Testament scholars (the group you complain about), scholars of the Classical period, and scholars of "Ancient History". Only the first group falls into your pet hate, the rest of them are simply general historians.

PS - on what basis are you declaring that Dickson is a "poor academic scholar"?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Even if Jesus did exist, it doesn't actually mean anything. Him having been real doesn't mean he had any magical powers, nor does it mean that he was anything special. If he was real, it's far more likely that he was a child born of a whorish mother who lied about "divine conception" to avoid punishment for sex out of wedlock, and was charismatic enough to trick a horde of peasants into believing that there was some kind of life after death.

I think you're conflating Mary and Jesus in your hypothetical (you start off talking about Mary but seem to end on talking about Jesus), but I will say that your first two sentences do have a valid point. At no point have I suggested that a real historical Jesus therefore means that Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, performed miracles, etc. Anyone who says "Jesus was historical therefore the gospels must be real" is an idiot.

[Podo]

I think you're conflating Mary and Jesus in your hypothetical (you start off talking about Mary but seem to end on talking about Jesus), but I will say that your first two sentences do have a valid point. At no point have I suggested that a real historical Jesus therefore means that Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, performed miracles, etc. Anyone who says "Jesus was historical therefore the gospels must be real" is an idiot.

There are a lot of idiots.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

And as Dickson noted, this isn't just about scholars in New Testament or Biblical studies. Dickson presented three groups of people whose expertise he would accept. New Testament scholars (the group you complain about), scholars of the Classical period, and scholars of "Ancient History". Only the first group falls into your pet hate, the rest of them are simply general historians.

PS - on what basis are you declaring that Dickson is a "poor academic scholar"?

The point is that those who fall into those other two categories have mainly simply not declared - thinking it better for their academic career. They have no horse in the race (unlike the Christian theologians) so simply have nothing to gain by declaring the reality of jesus.

Find me a list of those two categories who have declared acceptance of a historic jesus. You will struggle.

The reality is that most academics are violently indifferent to the real jesus.

I read a bit about Dicksons work and came to the conclusion that in his handling of criticism of his work he was not averse to mischaracturising other people comments - which makes him a poor scholar prone to straw man arguments. He has a performers personality (and hence his previous career as a pop musician) and he has a captive audience to which he performs - you are one of those audience.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 24, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Grandpa Greenman]

If he was real then to bad he didn't write anything down, because I think those who did told a lot of whoppers.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here's a blatant example of the Gospel of Mark making up history to convey an underlining Theological theme. No debunking of miracles needed.

Looking at Leviticus we see the "ScapeGoat" ritual using two Goats. One Goat is set free into the wilderness. The other Goat is offered up as a Sin offering.

Leviticus 16:7-10

"7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness."

Jesus after facing Pilate is offered by him to be released. Instead of Jesus (Son of God) being released, Barabbas (Son the Father) is released, and Jesus is sacrificed.

Mark 15:6-15

"6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.

7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.

8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.

9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.

11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.

12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.

14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified."

Now there's no tradition of Romans releasing prisoners let alone a murderous insurrectionist. It says Pilate (Mark 15:6) did this. This flies in the face of what we know of Pilate in ancient writings. The Gospels portrays Pilate as soft, but the writings of Philo and Josephus show him to be brutal which ends up getting him in trouble. See link below:

Let's Compare Pontius Pilate

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=272509&st=0&p=5329121&hl=+pilateentry5329121n

Animals offered for sacrifice have to be unblemished. The unknown author of Mark used Barabbas as a literary device. Barabbas (Son of the Father) is full of sin is rejected as a sacrifice. Jesus (Son of God) is the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of Sin.

Barabbas "son of the father"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Barabbas

Another example of the Gospel going against history is the crucifixion it's self. Passover is a high holy day. It's like if we held executions on Christmas. The Jewish Priests are worried of causing a riot so they seize Jesus at night. Meanwhile they hold a public execution instead of waiting for the Pilgrims for the Passover go home. Besides blasphemous people were usually stoned on the spot.

People that think the Gospels accurately record history is of shear ignorrance, and, or under a delusion.

Merry MYTHmas all you evolved mutated crazy primates!

[Mr Walker]

The fact that the head of Department at Oxford is Johannes Zachhuber, a Christian, rather refutes this assertion and supports mine.

Br Cornelius

You missed the point. I wasn't denying that many of the heads of "biblical studies' are either christian or jewish (and there are long-standing historical reasons why his is so ) My point was that these disciplines have many high ranking people in them who are atheists, and also that the discipline requires the same standards of historical evidentiary proofs as all other history schools in universities . In general these athiests and agnostics undertake historical studies of biblical lands times and people without any form of theological belief And most of them accept the historical existence of the man we know as jesus, because of the way he is embedded contextually in the surrounding history of his time.

My post was really responding to this specific point you made in your post.

There are almost no really secular Biblical scholar

Once upon a time that MIGHT nave been true but it simply is not true any more. Secular historians including atheists and agnostics are quite common in biblical studies and have risen to quite high positions in this historical displine. (it is not ONLY a theological discipline but also an historical one )

Edited December 25, 2015 by Mr Walker