An historian's view on Jesus

[+Sherapy]

Then perhaps you can quote Dr Ehrman where he states that it is just his "opinion" that Jesus is historical, and/or that atheists who take the Christ-myth hypothesis seriously have just as valid a position from an historical point of view.

Misrepresentation, or just making a point for effect and not properly understanding the other point of view. For example, in this thread we have my fellow moderator Tiggs on quite a number of occasions try and narrow the debate down to "biblical scholars" rather than just a more generalised field of scholars in ancient history (if I recall correctly, you have made the same error). I could easily say (and have said several times) that Tiggs is misrepresenting the situation by trying to narrow it down to just biblical scholars.

Does this therefore mean that Tiggs is demonstrating a pattern of misrepresentation? On the surface, yes it is. But he's doing it to try and support his views. At least in the case of this discussion you have access to both mine and Tiggs responses in order to contextualise the debate. We don't even have that for Dr Dickson. Though if you are happy to say that Tiggs is being more of a showman than a debater, then I'll concede that without further knowledge of exactly what discussion happened between Dr Dickson and the author of the article that yes, indeed, just like Tiggs is being a poor scholar then so is Dr Dickson failing in the same manner.

More generally, it only takes a brief look a Dr Bart Ehrman's blog to find a comment about Mr Richard Carrier's critique of Ehrman's book, "Did Jesus exist" (just wondering how this pans out if I use "Mr" instead of "Dr", as you seem to consistently try and refer to Dr Dickson as "Mr"). Could you bring yourself to say that Carrier is misrepresenting Ehrman, and therefore Mr Carrier is more a showman than a credible historian? For further information, a LINK just for you

Something tells me you aren't going to agree with this, despite the fact that I can show a repeated pattern in this thread of myself referencing scholars of ancient history and classics, and Tiggs CONSTANTLY ignoring that and instead referencing "biblical scholars".

I could be wrong, of course, maybe I am, and maybe you'll therefore agree to the fallacious nature of Tiggs' argument. But if you don't, then you'll have to acknowledge that maybe the "misrepresentation" you are seeing in the link you provided about Dr Dickson may not be quite as much a matter of showmanship as it is about two people debating a topic of interest to both.

I am much interested to find out which side of the coin you fall down on in this.

On the historicity of Jesus listen to what Bart Erhman says here.

I think Paul is correct it is time you define what you mean by historicity of Jesus.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Sherapy

[Tiggs]

And of those tablets you expect one of them to attest to one small group in one small area from one small time in history?

Not a small group. The same area as the tablets were found. Over a millennia in time.

Not only the evidence, but the training to be able to interpret that evidence!

And yet, the multivarious interpretations of just who they think the historical Jesus was are an utter shambles.

Besides - most laymen don't have to actually read the Hebrew / Greek / Latin texts and divine an interpretation for themselves. There's plenty of prior art in that area to choose from by those who have been trained.

What they can do, fairly easily, is weigh and balance those interpretations and come to their own conclusions.

I can only go by what I'm reading on the website.

I see. What did you think of the next sentence to the one you quoted?

No. Did you unearth similarly scathing papers? Just a post or so back I linked to a video of Bart Ehrman, in it he says that consensus isn't evidence (I agree, it isn't). But if you are going to go against the consensus you'd better have some compelling evidence, or else you're just going to look like a fool.

If I had compelling evidence in either direction, I wouldn't be agnostic on Jesus' historicity.

I don't think anyone has compelling evidence. That's pretty much my point.

The scholars trained to analyse these pieces of evidence would seem to disagree with you.

As you seem to agree that consensus isn't evidence - why should I care what the consensus opinion is amongst a group of people whose best interests are largely served by holding that consensus?

I trust your judgement as much as I would trust my brother

That's nice - but it's not the question I asked you.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Tiggs

[Tiggs]

I could easily say (and have said several times) that Tiggs is misrepresenting the situation by trying to narrow it down to just biblical scholars.

Simply put - you can either demonstrate a representative sample of Classical and Ancient Historians that have published papers on Jesus' historicity, or you can't.

Didn't you just earlier agree with my position that the majority of them probably aren't interested in Jesus' historicity, whatsoever?

Though if you are happy to say that Tiggs is being more of a showman than a debater

By pointing out that you have no evidence that Classical and Ancient Historians are largely interested in Jesus' historicity?

Something tells me you aren't going to agree with this, despite the fact that I can show a repeated pattern in this thread of myself referencing scholars of ancient history and classics, and Tiggs CONSTANTLY ignoring that and instead referencing "biblical scholars".

As opposed to trying to claim the majority of Ancient Historians for your side of the fence?

If you can't show that Classical and Ancient Historians have a mainstream interest in Jesus' historicity - why should I include them as a group of people that are likely to dispute the consensus opinion held by Biblical scholars?

[Jungleboogie]

Here's some cognitive dissonance for you:

This is ancient Greek pottery from the 4th century BCE. The women are performing a passion play to the God Dionysus. They are in ritual omophagia which is eating the flesh (Grapeskin), and blood (Wine) of their God. Part of the ritual includes priests of Dyionysus placing containers filled with water into the temple which the God turns into Wine for the next day's festivities.

Worshipping a guy on a stick predates the Jesus myth.

Not cognitive dissonance for me. Actually I fully agree with you on that point and take it much further. The vestiges of what I personally call 'The Religion of Twelves' is painted all over Judaism, Christianity & Islam. I interpret Jesus and the 12 disciples to figuratively indicate Jesus Christ as taking dominance over the Religion of Twelves. It's a shame so few people study the classics. I've been studying the classical authors for 30 years as an amateur scholar, and these things seem so obvious to me, I'm glad you agree!

Most Christian holidays are also vestiges of this religion. One can even say "The Pope killed Jesus" and be historically accurate, since Tiberius held the post of Pontiff at the time of the Crucifixion and the term is far older than Christianity. It's latin and roughly means chief priest.

Herodotus, in his peculiar vein of prose, makes an almost Lovecraftian style hint of the horror and outrage Greeks would have felt if they knew whence their Gods came. That was the statement that initiated my suspicions of the Religion of Twelves and brought me to my current outlook.

I do feel strongly that Jesus was a real person based on the Bible as a historical document, roughly backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a second corroboration with Flavius Josephus. Most scholars feel the same way. If someone else doesn't, I can certainly respect that but of course the onus is on them to prove otherwise.

I could go into Mosis and the Torah or Herodotus, but that's probably better left for another thread as I would get way off topic.

Happy Chronos eve Davros, 8, PA & everyone!

Edited January 1, 2016 by Jungleboogie

[+Link of Hyrule]

it appeared earlier in this thread or in a similar thread, and that as much of the work as I am going to do for you. Find it yourself.

I've read every post in this thread as a matter of courtesy (I began the thread), so it's not in this thread. Considering I've read the entire book of Dr Ehrman's "Did Jesus exist", and linked a video to you recently and he never once referred to this as just his opinion, I can only conclude that it will be impossible to find it myself, it's futile trying to find something that doesn't exist. Until and unless you provide the information, I will operate under the assumption that it does not exist, for that is my experience of Bart Ehrman's writings and videos.

As to Dickson, when scholars debate their work we should expect them to maintain scholastic standards and not to descend into logical fallacies. He demeans his field such as it is.

Br Cornelius

So is Richard Carrier demeaning his field, such as it is in his response to Bart Ehrman, considering the logical fallacies that Carrier stooped to? http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ Edited January 1, 2016 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA

I don't see the big mystery here.

How can you not see it? We have scholars from fields such as German languages who have written entire books on the Christ-myth theory. Apparently it's a hobby for them. But no one in the field of ancient history has done anything similar. I simply ask "why", and the obvious answer staring me back in the face is that a scholar trained in ancient history has a better grasp of interpreting evidence available to ancient historians, and therefore the scholar in German languages made rookie mistakes that real historians wouldn't make. My brother (PhD, psychology lecturer) would make the very same rookie mistakes, because he doesn't have the relevant background to sift through available evidence and make a judgement on it.

Or, to use Dr Ehrman's argument - consensus isn't evidence. But if every scientist employed at every university and reputable college in the world believes in evolution rather than creationism, then that isn't evidence either, but if you are going to go against the consensus then you'd better have some pretty compelling evidence of your own to bring at them. Christ-mythers simply do not have that compelling evidence.

There is no issue of needing faith. There is a factual question of what your basis of belief is.

Your faith cannot play any role in your beliefs about Abraham Lincoln; your faith is irrelevant to anything about him. Your faith can and did play a role in the case of Jesus. In particular, Protestant notions of faith preclude uncertainty about scriptural fact-claims. A necessary condition for an observation to be evidence is that there is an uncertainty upon which it bears. You don't qualify for evidence.

It is equally impossible for me to believe in the Pythagorean Theorem based upon evidence. Demonstration has extinguished uncertainty; there is no such thing as evidence about PT within my belief structure, because I don't qualify for evidence. For me, substitute you; for demonstration, scripture; for Pythagorean Theorem, Jesus' existence.

I don't think you quite understand what I am arguing. Jesus' existence! That's it, nothing more or less. Jesus' existence is not a statement of faith, but fact. What Jesus may have done, who he hanged out with, his miracles and such, I take these on faith. But the existence of Jesus is not a faith-based statement, and never will be one.

Then what is your definition of the historical Judas who didn't first befriend and later betray Jesus by accompanying those who arrested Jesus? And does Judas make it onto your definitional list of propositions about Jesus' life or not?

It really doesn't matter here what Freed thinks except insofar as Judas makes it onto the list or not. Freed simply shows that the question is worth asking within academia, and so unlettered schmucks like myself can also dare to ask our less elegant queries. OK, it's been asked. Judas, in or out? If in, what version?

Judas - in. What version? Long story, since I would argue that his guts spilling out is more of a poetic rendering of what happened, that he hung himself and such.

[+Link of Hyrule]

https://youtu.be/lyi15_npTj8

On the historicity of Jesus listen to what Bart Erhman says here.

Okay, just finished listening to the video. I didn't hear him mention a single time that it was just his opinion that there was an historical Jesus. He simply laid out that there was no non-Christian writings about Jesus until 80 years after his life.

I think Paul is correct it is time you define what you mean by historicity of Jesus.

There was a Jewish preacher named Jesus, from the town of Nazareth. He was baptised by John the Baptist, taught a message of peace, and was subsequently crucified under the watch of Pontius Pilate.

That would be a decent start, and pretty much covers the essentials of what can be declared undisputed events of Jesus' life.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I see. What did you think of the next sentence to the one you quoted?

Not a great deal, should I think something specific about his appointment as Head of the Department of the Ancient World?

I don't think anyone has compelling evidence. That's pretty much my point.

That is where we must disagree.

As you seem to agree that consensus isn't evidence - why should I care what the consensus opinion is amongst a group of people whose best interests are largely served by holding that consensus?

Once again you try and turn this into a discussion about biblical scholars. Repeat after me - ancient historians, classicists, also suffice to answer the question.

That's nice - but it's not the question I asked you.

I think you'll find it did. My brother, as intelligent as he is, is not a trained historian and therefore is not a valid source of information on the field of ancient history. Psychology, yes, he'll be a perfect go-to guy for information and validity as a source. You, not so much. As far as I know you are not trained in either ancient history OR psychology, and I therefore do not take you as a valid source in either field.

Simply put - you can either demonstrate a representative sample of Classical and Ancient Historians that have published papers on Jesus' historicity, or you can't.

Didn't you just earlier agree with my position that the majority of them probably aren't interested in Jesus' historicity, whatsoever?

By pointing out that you have no evidence that Classical and Ancient Historians are largely interested in Jesus' historicity?

As opposed to trying to claim the majority of Ancient Historians for your side of the fence?

If you can't show that Classical and Ancient Historians have a mainstream interest in Jesus' historicity - why should I include them as a group of people that are likely to dispute the consensus opinion held by Biblical scholars?

It's quite simple - the only scholars you've been able to cite as Christ-mythers in the field of ancient history and employed by universities, have been dead for decades (and it hasn't escaped my notice that pretty much all of them hail from the Soviet Union, though it would be a borderline ad hominem argument to raise that as a reason why they specifically seem interested in the Christ-myth theory). And despite the decades between, the Christ-myth theory is as fringe now as it was then (and in the 18th Century when it was first floated around). By contrast, you can point to scholars outside the field of ancient history who have indeed written papers (heck, entire books) on the Christ-myth theory. If you can find scholars outside the field of ancient history who believe the Christ-myth theory, but cannot find similar scholars within the field, then there is obviously something wrong with the methodology or argument of those writing outside of the field. Edited January 1, 2016 by Paranoid Android

[+Hammerclaw]

In the end--for the both of you--it's a Faith-based argument--since it all boils down to whom and what you each want to believe.

[Tiggs]

Not a great deal, should I think something specific about his appointment as Head of the Department of the Ancient World?

It was more the part about him gaining his professorship. I don't have the original Russian version to hand (or would be able to effectively translate it, if I had) - but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it refers to him getting his PhD.

Again - given that it would be fairly unusual to become Head of Department in the Ancient World on the back of a bachelor's degree in Social Studies.

But, hey. As if I particularly care, one way or the other.

That is where we must disagree.

No kidding.

Once again you try and turn this into a discussion about biblical scholars. Repeat after me - ancient historians, classicists, also suffice to answer the question.

Repeat after me - you've yet to show that the vast majority of them have any interest whatsoever in the question of the historicity of Christ.

I think you'll find it did.

If it had, then I wouldn't be pulling you up on it.

Let me make this more simple for you - do you think my opinion would change if I had a PhD in Ancient History?

As far as I know you are not trained in either ancient history OR psychology, and I therefore do not take you as a valid source in either field.

Since we're listing things that I'm not formally trained in - I don't have a degree in software engineering, either, let alone a PhD.

I have, however, won a couple of international awards for my software.

It's almost as if formal training in a field and the ability to work effectively within it aren't necessarily connected.

It's quite simple - the only scholars you've been able to cite as Christ-mythers in the field of ancient history and employed by universities, have been dead for decades (and it hasn't escaped my notice that pretty much all of them hail from the Soviet Union, though it would be a borderline ad hominem argument to raise that as a reason why they specifically seem interested in the Christ-myth theory). And despite the decades between, the Christ-myth theory is as fringe now as it was then (and in the 18th Century when it was first floated around). By contrast, you can point to scholars outside the field of ancient history who have indeed written papers (heck, entire books) on the Christ-myth theory. If you can find scholars outside the field of ancient history who believe the Christ-myth theory, but cannot find similar scholars within the field, then there is obviously something wrong with the methodology or argument of those writing outside of the field.

Or - and this may sound familiar - ancient historians, by and large, really just don't care about the historicity of Jesus very much, having found other areas of history which they're more interested in.

As for Christ-myth being fringe - then you should probably stop wasting your time worrying about it.

Besides which - I'm agnostic about Christ's historicity.

Because my issue is with the lack of available evidence - let alone it's quality - there's literally no argument that you can conjure up which is going to change that, and especially not one which involves consensus.

I absolutely could not care less what the consensus opinion of Biblical Scholars, Classical Historians, Ancient Historians, Modern Historians, German Linguists, Philosophers, Librarians, Traffic Wardens - whichever - actually is, on the historicity of Christ.

I could be the only person on the entire planet holding my opinion, and it still wouldn't phase me one iota.

Sorry - but that's just the way it is.

[Tatetopa]

How would one go about proving that Jesus, or anyone else that lived 2000 years ago did not exist? Without records of everyone that ever existed, its tough to prove the neagtive. However, that does not prove the contrapositive that Jesus did exist.

[Mr Walker]

In the end--for the both of you--it's a Faith-based argument--since it all boils down to whom and what you each want to believe.

No that is not true. There is enough evidence for the existence of an historical Christ, to satisfy the atheist and agnostic historians and related academics. No faith at all (just a training in historical methodology ) is needed to know that Christ was a real historical person. But of course, that says absolutely nothing about his status. It is as if some people claimed Buddha was the son of god. That wouldn't mean Buddha was any less real.

[+Hammerclaw]

No that is not true. There is enough evidence for the existence of an historical Christ, to satisfy the atheist and agnostic historians and related academics. No faith at all (just a training in historical methodology ) is needed to know that Christ was a real historical person. But of course, that says absolutely nothing about his status. It is as if some people claimed Buddha was the son of god. That wouldn't mean Buddha was any less real.

As far as I know, there is no actual physical evidence and the documentation of his life occurred well after his death. I take on Faith the truth of his existence.

[Mr Walker]

As far as I know, there is no actual physical evidence and the documentation of his life occurred well after his death. I take on Faith the truth of his existence.

This is a mistaken and quite modern view There is ample historical evidence to know Christ was real. It is mostly people who don't want to believe in his existence who ask for standards of historical proofs not required in other situations .

For example known historical archaeological sites which were the centre of worship by early jesus cultists and later became significant Christian sites. The writings of paul. The tax records and other records of the romans referencing the followers of christ . The quick and widespread growth of the religion at the time of christ's historical death, with various factions and groups with different beliefs eg pauline, gnostic and jewish christinas,jostling for supremacy.

The recorded responses of Judaic authorities to christ, who never denied his existence but merely his status as a messiah, and painted him as a preacher of false doctrine.

Looking back at this powerful, and sometimes reviled, religion, NOW, people are tempted to make up conspiracy theories to explain the origins of Christianity, but it is really very simple A populist preacher teaching a liberal version of Judaism runs foul of the conservative jewish authorities who use the power of the roman governor to have him executed This was in a time when there were many such cases, and indeed one whole group of similar jews was locked in a building and burned alive by the conservative group employing fundamentalist zealots. If the Romans had NOT killed christ, he probably would have faded into obscurity or more likely have played a part in the eventual reform of judaism which occurred, bringing a more liberal version, and be remembered historically in a similar way to the Hillels

.

The irony of the situation, bitter or sweet, is that the killing of christ, in an attempt to kill his message, created Christianity, and the most powerful religion the world has ever known, based largely on his message, with considerable pauline revision. .

There is really nothing unusual or controversial about christ's life, which would cause us to doubt his existence. It is only when the layers of mythology and belief are added on, and we look back through them, that some are moved to say ' No way, Jose" The first documentation of christs life now in existence was pauls, which was not, "well after his death", but only a decade or two . The gospels were also written within the life time of christ's contemporaries . BUT The significant thing here is that BOTH these sources reference a cult which was well established BEFORE they came about, ie almost immediately upon the time of christs death, just as one might expect when a charismatic leader was executed and his followers carried on.

The cult had a widespread network of churches and a significant presence in Rome, attracting the attention of the Romans BEFORE our current versions of the gospels were written. Probably the roman tax system was altered to accommodate the Christian religion, before the gospels we know, were in existence. This rewriting, acknowledging, the growing split between jews and christians, occurred about 80 AD

Edited January 1, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Davros of Skaro]

Not cognitive dissonance for me. Actually I fully agree with you on that point and take it much further. The vestiges of what I personally call 'The Religion of Twelves' is painted all over Judaism, Christianity & Islam. I interpret Jesus and the 12 disciples to figuratively indicate Jesus Christ as taking dominance over the Religion of Twelves. It's a shame so few people study the classics. I've been studying the classical authors for 30 years as an amateur scholar, and these things seem so obvious to me, I'm glad you agree!

Most Christian holidays are also vestiges of this religion. One can even say "The Pope killed Jesus" and be historically accurate, since Tiberius held the post of Pontiff at the time of the Crucifixion and the term is far older than Christianity. It's latin and roughly means chief priest.

Herodotus, in his peculiar vein of prose, makes an almost Lovecraftian style hint of the horror and outrage Greeks would have felt if they knew whence their Gods came. That was the statement that initiated my suspicions of the Religion of Twelves and brought me to my current outlook.

I do feel strongly that Jesus was a real person based on the Bible as a historical document, roughly backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a second corroboration with Flavius Josephus. Most scholars feel the same way. If someone else doesn't, I can certainly respect that but of course the onus is on them to prove otherwise.

I could go into Mosis and the Torah or Herodotus, but that's probably better left for another thread as I would get way off topic.

Happy Chronos eve Davros, 8, PA & everyone!

Dayam!

I'm not touching this one.

[Space Commander Travis]

Since I don't take you seriously. Also I assume others understand what I'm talking about wether they agree, or not?

I'm just going to post to show what a farce the NT is.

Jonah 1:4-6

"4 But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

6 So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not."

Jonah 1:15-16

"15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

16 Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows."

Psalm 107:23-29

"23 They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;

24 These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.

25 For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.

26 They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.

27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end.

28 Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.

29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still."

Mark 4:35-41

"35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.

36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.

37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"

Sea of Galilee

Max. length 21 km (13 mi)

Max. width 13 km (8.1 mi)

Surface area 166 km2 (64 sq mi)

Average depth 25.6 m (84 ft)

Max. depth 43 m (141 ft)

https://en.m.wikiped.../Sea_of_Galilee

How about it Stubbs!!!

Do you know what all this means!?

As it also says, if you'd really been interested in the matter rather than providing lots of amusing pictures showing how weird and wacky these Xtians are , even fairly small bodies of water surrounded by mountains can produce some pretty sudden dramatic changes in weather, as people familiar with the Swiss lakes might be able to tell you,

Author Michael Keene commented that the Sea of Galilee was known for its sudden and fierce storms and that the Jews were people of the land who were generally uncomfortable at sea, specially since they believed the sea to be full of frightening creatures. ^[6] The Pulpit Commentary attributes these sudden storms to winds arising on the summits of Mount Hermon, in the Anti-Lebanon mountains to the north.

The disciples were probably in a small, open fishing boat when they encountered this great storm. The original Greek word for the storm is “seismos” which literally means “a shaking” and is the term we use to get the word seismic which is descriptive of earthquakes. The violence of the storm shook the water in the lake creating waves that covered the boat and started filling it with water.^[7]

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

[Davros of Skaro]

So is Richard Carrier demeaning his field, such as it is in his response to Bart Ehrman, considering the logical fallacies that Carrier stooped to? http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

I just want to say there's more to this. Like for example Bart lumping Richard with Acharya S for example, but I digress.

You read Bart's Book. Does he say that there's evidence, and or writings about Jesus 1-2 years after his supposed death?

[Davros of Skaro]

As it also says, if you'd really been interested in the matter rather than providing lots of amusing pictures showing how weird and wacky these Xtians are , even fairly small bodies of water surrounded by mountains can produce some pretty sudden dramatic changes in weather, as people familiar with the Swiss lakes might be able to tell you,

Author Michael Keene commented that the Sea of Galilee was known for its sudden and fierce storms and that the Jews were people of the land who were generally uncomfortable at sea, specially since they believed the sea to be full of frightening creatures. ^[6] The Pulpit Commentary attributes these sudden storms to winds arising on the summits of Mount Hermon, in the Anti-Lebanon mountains to the north.

The disciples were probably in a small, open fishing boat when they encountered this great storm. The original Greek word for the storm is “seismos” which literally means “a shaking” and is the term we use to get the word seismic which is descriptive of earthquakes. The violence of the storm shook the water in the lake creating waves that covered the boat and started filling it with water.^[7]

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

I conceded this point to Mr Walker.

[Jungleboogie]

Dayam!

I'm not touching this one.

I agree, it's some crazy stuff. Nonetheless, the title 'Pontifex Maximus" (the Pontiff) was assumed by all Roman Emperors until late 300 AD.

This would include Tiberius.

I can't help the facts, they just are what they are.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Jungleboogie

[Davros of Skaro]

How would one go about proving that Jesus, or anyone else that lived 2000 years ago did not exist? Without records of everyone that ever existed, its tough to prove the neagtive. However, that does not prove the contrapositive that Jesus did exist.

Well with Jesus we look at the evidence.

There's no contemporary evidence. We have the letters of Paul which are some 20 years after Jesus's supposed death (we get conflicting dates from the later Gospels). When looking at his writings with scrutiny we see Paul talking about a celestial Jesus derived from the OT, and through hallucinations.

The Gospels which are 20-50 years later are wildly frictional, and that's not including the miracle claims.

The nonChristian evidence comes around late 1st century, and later. They are highly debatable, have signs of Christian interpolation, and only prove the existence of Christians.

People believed in many Gods, but that doesn't prove those other Gods real.

[Jungleboogie]

I'm not touching this one.

How would one go about proving that Jesus, or anyone else that lived 2000 years ago did not exist? Without records of everyone that ever existed, its tough to prove the neagtive. However, that does not prove the contrapositive that Jesus did exist.

Tough crowd. I get the feeling I could list a hundred corroborations and you will still ignore evidence and stick to belief that Jesus Christ wasn't a real person. You may as well claim Plato isn't real either.

OK, here is yet another corroboration:

Book 15

Cornelius Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome

Note that 99.9% of scholarly opinion again among historians is that the reference is authentic.

The lone wolf is the same self described 'atheist activist' whack job I described earlier, Richard Carrier.

Richard Carrier again has no evidence, just agenda and idle speculation of interpolation.

Since all texts have been authenticated, the burden of proof is on the dissenter. As no one has provided direct evidence, only idle speculation, then the status quo stands, that Jesus Christ was a real person.

Of course, if you had actual evidence, why waste your time here? Gain fame and fortune having your evidence published in a respected science journal, turn the entire academic establishment on its head, along with guest slots on the BBC, CNN, and Fox for doing so. Good luck!

I'll gladly consider the argument if someone comes up with direct evidence rather than idle speculation of interpolation. But I doubt anyone will do anything but parrot Richard Carrier again. May as well quote Jessie Ventura and call it 'evidence'.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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 Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

[Mr Walker]

Well Mr Walker I have to concede my after thought point.

It's in part of my bias of living in a Lake community most of my life. Even though this Lake is pretty much half the length, width, and depth of the Lake in question. It does not have the same conditions in enviroment. I never seen waves that would make my life threatened in a two seater flat bottom Boat, let alone a Boat made for several men and a load of Fish. I do not think it's fair for you to use Lake Erie as a comparison either.

Mark is known for his geographical mistakes, and scholars theorize he was a Jew in Rome even though he makes Jewish Theological mistakes too. Also in Mark Jesus keeps coming to shore to crowds waiting as if to convey the journey is far and wide?

Some scholars think Mark had some inspiration from Homer's "Odyssey" with the magic Sack of Wind?

"10:46 "So they spoke, and the evil counsel of my comrades prevailed. They loosed the wallet, and all the winds leapt forth, and swiftly the storm-wind seized them and bore them weeping out to sea away from their native land; but as for me, I awoke, and pondered in my goodly heart whether I should fling myself from the ship and perish in the sea, or endure in silence and still remain among the living. However, I endured and abode, and covering my head lay down in the ship. But the ships were borne by an evil blast of wind back to the Aeolian isle; and my comrades groaned."

http://www.theoi.com...rOdyssey10.html

I would like to see video of violent, and huge waves on that Lake. I doubt that will happen.

I don't know lake Erie, that just came up in one of the sources i found I do know from general/geographical knowledge that the sea of Galilee is quite notorious for sudden and dangerous storms And I grew up on a harbour/enclosed bay about five-10 miles across and thirty miles long with only two small entrances As i said I've been caught in big waves caused by a stiff southerly change of only 20-30 or so miles an hour.

You might be right in your reasoning, but i tend to Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the most likely Mark was recounting an event he probably didn't witness and quite possibly used some 'poetic licence" especially IF he had read the classics (which is a big if) It is more likely that such stories are thrilling and relate to the danger of nature, which can be mastered by an heroic or divine being, where an ordinary man might perish. Stories from all over the world show divine beings mastering nature. In judaic theology it is also the concept of god being more powerful than previous pagan spirits/ beings and deities, seen to CAUSE bad weather etc. Christ was COMMANDING the sea to be still showing his power over nature AND the pagan spirits of nature. I don't think people then, really saw nature as a neutral "natural force," but as a power manipulated by entities and spirits,. which could be commanded and appeased.

If you google, "videos of storms on the sea of Galilee" you get a few results. None really give the feel of what it would be like out on the lake in a small fishing boat, but this is one of the best.

I wouldn't like to be out in this one, either.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Davros of Skaro]

Tough crowd. I get the feeling I could list a hundred corroborations and you will still ignore evidence and stick to belief that Jesus Christ wasn't a real person. You may as well claim Plato isn't real either.

OK, here is yet another corroboration:

Book 15

Cornelius Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome

Note that 99.9% of scholarly opinion again among historians is that the reference is authentic.

The lone wolf is the same self described 'atheist activist' whack job I described earlier, Richard Carrier.

Richard Carrier again has no evidence, just agenda and idle speculation of interpolation.

Since all texts have been authenticated, the burden of proof is on the dissenter. As no one has provided direct evidence, only idle speculation, then the status quo stands, that Jesus Christ was a real person.

Of course, if you had actual evidence, why waste your time here? Gain fame and fortune having your evidence published in a respected science journal, turn the entire academic establishment on its head, along with guest slots on the BBC, CNN, and Fox for doing so. Good luck!

I'll gladly consider the argument if someone comes up with direct evidence rather than idle speculation of interpolation. But I doubt anyone will do anything but parrot Richard Carrier again. May as well quote Jessie Ventura and call it 'evidence'.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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 Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

I can argue that Tacitus was talking about Chrestians followers of Chrestus (the good), and the Pilate part was also interpolated.

I do not have to.

This early 2nd century (116 CE) reference shows Christians in Rome around 64 CE. There's no controversy on the existence of Christians around this time.

As for Tacitus saying Jesus killed by Pilate is just repeating what Christians believed since the Gospels were in circulation at the time of writing. Tacitus does not note his source.

Tacitus is evidence for the existence of Christians, and what they believed. Not evidence for the existence of Jesus.

[Davros of Skaro]

I agree, it's some crazy stuff. Nonetheless, the title 'Pontifex Maximus" (the Pontiff) was assumed by all Roman Emperors until late 300 AD.

This would include Tiberius.

I can't help the facts, they just are what they are.

I agree with that part. Julius Caesar was a Pontifex Maximus.

If Jesus had the same evidence for Divus Ilius? I would not think Jesus as myth.

Edited January 1, 2016 by davros of skaro

[+Link of Hyrule]

It was more the part about him gaining his professorship. I don't have the original Russian version to hand (or would be able to effectively translate it, if I had) - but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it refers to him getting his PhD.

Again - given that it would be fairly unusual to become Head of Department in the Ancient World on the back of a bachelor's degree in Social Studies.

But, hey. As if I particularly care, one way or the other.

I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway, since apart from him belonging to the same group of earlier-referenced scholars that came to lead universities in the Soviet Union several decades ago, I've already provided the names of the two other relevant scholars to Dr Dickson in answer to his challenge. Since Dickson only required ONE such scholar, the fact that he's been provided with two won't make much difference if a third long-dead scholar happened to be added to the list.

No kidding.

Indeed! As far as I'm concerned the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling.

Repeat after me - you've yet to show that the vast majority of them have any interest whatsoever in the question of the historicity of Christ.

I don't need to! The point (which you've constantly overlooked and/or ignored) is that we have scholars outside of the field of ancient history who make Christ-myth claims. We even have scholars with degrees in ancient history who believe the Christ-myth claims but are not employed by any accredited university in the world. Surely then, if the Christ-myth theory has any validity whatsoever, surely there must be even a single scholar in the field of ancient history and employed by an accredited university who also believes the Christ-myth theory. Under these stipulations, I don't NEED to show that there is widespread agreement among scholars of ancient history that Jesus exists. It is YOU who needs to provide even ONE SINGLE scholar who disagrees with that.

I do admit that even if you did manage to find one such example then it wouldn't actually change my opinion, it would only confirm the situation that it is a minority view. What it WOULD do, is cause a scholar that I respect to eat a page of his Bible. That's not a big thing, I've eaten paper before (I was a kid, but I did) so it's not likely going to kill him, but it would make an interesting story, especially if he makes a video of it and uploads it to YouTube.

What it DOES do (yes, I seem to be using capitals a lot in this post), however, is show how valid the Christ-myth theory actually is. There seems to be a movement in atheist circles that is attempting to paint the Christ-myth theory as a view that is actually held by a minority of scholars and is growing in momentum and slowly but surely eclipsing the status quo. The fact that you (or anyone else here) can't cite a single currently active scholar (as of present, at least) to support that statement shows that the atheist movement to characterise a Christ-myth theory is not only a minority, but virtually non-existent in academia (and let's not just stick to biblical scholars, let's open it up to any related field of ancient history).

If it had, then I wouldn't be pulling you up on it.

Let me make this more simple for you - do you think my opinion would change if I had a PhD in Ancient History?

I don't know, you don't have a PhD in ancient history so I cannot say how the training that six years of university (roughly speaking) would change the way you approach the information.

Since we're listing things that I'm not formally trained in - I don't have a degree in software engineering, either, let alone a PhD.

I have, however, won a couple of international awards for my software.

It's almost as if formal training in a field and the ability to work effectively within it aren't necessarily connected.

The field of software engineering has hard and fast rules, if you break those rules then your software doesn't work. The rules in ancient history aren't as clear cut. You don't have a system of zero's and one's that at the end of the day, you can put them through a computer and they will either work or break down. While I commend you for your knowledge of software systems, understanding how ancient history works is not exactly the same thing.

Or - and this may sound familiar - ancient historians, by and large, really just don't care about the historicity of Jesus very much, having found other areas of history which they're more interested in.

You keep saying this! Which is a fair point to make! But if your statement was purely and 100% an accurate representation of reality then professors of German languages would also, by and large, really just not care about the historicity of Jesus very much. But the fact is that I can demonstrate that such professors exist. And if they exist outside the field of ancient history, why is "ancient historians, generally speaking, just don't care about the historicity of Jesus" an acceptable argument to excuse the fact that there ae no scholars within the field of ancient history that argue a Christ-myth theory????

As for Christ-myth being fringe - then you should probably stop wasting your time worrying about it.

Besides which - I'm agnostic about Christ's historicity.

Because my issue is with the lack of available evidence - let alone it's quality - there's literally no argument that you can conjure up which is going to change that, and especially not one which involves consensus.

I absolutely could not care less what the consensus opinion of Biblical Scholars, Classical Historians, Ancient Historians, Modern Historians, German Linguists, Philosophers, Librarians, Traffic Wardens - whichever - actually is, on the historicity of Christ.

I could be the only person on the entire planet holding my opinion, and it still wouldn't phase me one iota.

Sorry - but that's just the way it is.

And that is your Right. As long as you are happy to acknowledge that it is the fringe view of things, then I am happy for you to take that view. If you wish, however, to tell the world that this should also be the view of the majority of scholarly academia, then I am going to argue against that. However, the fact of the matter is that the evidence clearly points to an historic Jesus of Nazareth. I know you disagree with that last statement, so we are again left at an impasse from which we cannot move ahead from.