Did Jesus Exist?

[Dark Virtue]

Well there you go.

You've made your point and proven me wrong all in one breath.

So what more could I possibly do?

EDIT:

I would love to have a serious discussion with you on this topic, but it seems that you have come into this discussion with an obvious dislike towards me.

If we can't get past that, then what is the point?

 

[Genesis1315]

Then, let's agree to disagree and move on

 

[Watcher]

I think we both know once one concludes the Jesus was a real historical figure that walked this earth, it opens up a can of worms for the non-believer. I point to C.S. Lewis the renowned atheist that made the same conclusion. Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic, or He was Lord and we all know what he concluded in the end.

For the edification of the board, I'd like to examine the ancient historians that documented Jesus. I'll concede some are unreliable, however, some are very reliable.

Before we move on to those, my goal was to illustrate for you and all others that deny Jesus that there was a man by that name that walked this earth 2000 years ago that founded the Christian faith. The scholarly community both secular and non accept it as academic fact.

 

[Watcher]

I don't have an obvious dislike for you. As a matter of fact, I love you. I have told you what an apologist you will make and I admire your passion. We simply have two different opinions and I firmly believe that it is possible to reconcile the two.

 

[Watcher]

I'll move on into the discussion over the weekend when I've got some more time.

Blessings.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I never claimed to be perfect or to know all the answers.

If I'm wrong, just show me I'm wrong.

There's no need to berate me or to hold evidence behind your back.

Just come out with it.

Logically, the burden of proof is on the believer, is it not?

I look forward to your discussions.

BTW, what do you think of the Jesus Seminar?

 

[Genesis1315]

I would love to see the original views of ancient historians posted here. I admit, I do not know much about this thread. What a great chance to learn. Please let me know what is out there from the Christian point of view. We have heard DV's side.

Gen

 

[Dark Virtue]

I found some disheartening results when I researched some of your "secular" sources Watcher.

Michael Grant
Grant, also in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, states that the Resurrection did not happen and that Christ's disciples were mistaken.
Grant asserts that one can't deny the empty tomb, but adds that it does not follow, therefore, that we must believe in a resurrection from the empty tomb.
Where did you find a statement saying he was an Atheist? The best I could find was a statement that he wasn't a Christian, that doesn't necessarily imply he was an Atheist. The ONLY cited source I can find referring to him as an atheist is Christopher Price (where I believe you got the quote from) which doesn't strike me as a reliable source.

(SIDENOTE, Grant died earlier this month at the age of 89)

Will Durant
You described Will Durant as a secular scholar, but he is described as a Christian scholar in the biographical portion of his website.
In fact, he is described as practicing "his religion so fervently that no one doubted that he would become a priest."
He may have had issues with his faith, but that didn't stop him from entering the priesthood.
He discarded his brief stint with atheism and re-embraced his faith after the birth of his daughter.
http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm

John P. Meier
Imagine my surprise when I looked up Meier and found a photograph of him holding his books...DRESSED IN PRIEST'S VESTMENTS. He is a monsignor in the Catholic Church. How does this, exactly, qualify him as a secular source as you described him?
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp

Murray J. Harris
Murray J. Harris is a professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL. Somehow I doubt he qualifies as a "secular" author.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the last two. Although looking at your post, it looks like you were lumping them into secularist works.

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do concerning Jesus from secular sources is nothing short of amazing. John Meier and Murray Harris have given several reasons why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information.

Had you intended them to be considered as secular authors?

What about Graham Stanton? You said that Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University, but failed to mention that Stanton is Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. This would negate him as a secular source, would it not?

Exactly how should I view the rest of your research?

I am now confused. Who were you listing as a secular author? On page 3 you said page 2 had a listing of secular authors, but I find NON-secular authors there.

So which ones were meant to be secular?

(I have edited this post several times so as not to sound overly accusatory.)

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]Michael Grant
Grant, also in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, states that the Resurrection did not happen and that Christ's disciples were mistaken.
Grant asserts that one can't deny the empty tomb, but adds that it does not follow, therefore, that we must believe in a resurrection from the empty tomb.
Where did you find a statement saying he was an Atheist?  The best I could find was a statement that he wasn't a Christian, that doesn't necessarily imply he was an Atheist. The ONLY cited source I can find referring to him as an atheist is Christopher Price (where I believe you got the quote from) which doesn't strike me as a reliable source.

(SIDENOTE, Grant died earlier this month at the age of 89)

Regarding Grant, Bede apparently sourced it from Holding’s site as noted here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-88038

Regardless, Grant is a secular writer, and judging his work, it is obvious he has no ‘theological axe to grind’ by Holding’s own words. It’s obvious which side of the fence Grant is on, is it not?

Quote[/b] ] Will Durant
You described Will Durant as a secular scholar, but he is described as a Christian scholar in the biographical portion of his website.
In fact, he is described as practicing "his religion so fervently that no one doubted that he would become a priest."
He may have had issues with his faith, but that didn't stop him from entering the priesthood.
He discarded his brief stint with atheism and re-embraced his faith after the birth of his daughter.
http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm

Please! Have you actually read any of his work? Yes it’s obvious he was a priest, but it’s also noted that he LEFT the church. There’s no question he had major issues with his faith. No CHRISTIAN would ever write some of the things he did. Whether he reconciled with God on his deathbed is unknown. Please quote where the biographer said he ‘re-embraced’ his faith. Especially when he wrote things like this in the Story of Civilization, which took most of his life to write.

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."

 "Christianity was to him a means, but not an end… While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, III, 1944, 653-664; quoted by UPCI)

Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgment, and ... reward and punishment (The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Part III, 1944, p. 595)

"Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world." (The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Part III, 1944, p. 595)
There are many more, but I believe I’ve made my point.
No, this man was not a Christian scholar like you would have everyone believe.

Quote[/b] ] I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the last two.  Although looking at your post, it looks like you were lumping them into secularist works.

I’m more than well aware that Meier and Harris are NT scholars. I used their 6 points to illustrate how Jesus was considered a marginal Jew. They are authorities on the subject but not secular and I never said they were secular. My apologies if I didn’t make that clear.

Quote[/b] ] What about Graham Stanton?  You said that Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University, but failed to mention that Stanton is Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity.  This would negate him as a secular source, would it not?

Here’s a description of his book, Jesus and the Gospel:

'Gospel' initially referred to oral proclamation concerning Jesus Christ, but was later used to refer to four written accounts of the life of Jesus. How did this happen? Here, distinguished scholar Graham Stanton uses new evidence and fresh perspectives to tackle this controversial question. He insists that in the early post-Easter period, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was heard against the backdrop of a rival set of 'gospels' concerning the Roman emperors. In later chapters Stanton examines the earliest criticisms of Jesus and of claims concerning his resurrection. Finally, he discusses the early Christian addiction to the codex (book) format as opposed to the ubiquitous roll, and undermines the view that early copies of the Gospels were viewed as downmarket handbooks of an inward looking sect. With half the material previously unpublished and the rest carefully gathered from sources difficult to access, this is a timely study with broad appeal.
So yes he’s a chair in New Testament studies, and that was obviously not hidden from you. I included him because he is a scholar with an objective point of view concerning religious studies and has no fundamentalist agenda at all. As a matter of fact, he’s a moderate and his work is accepted by historians on both sides. This man should not be considered a ‘Christian Scholar’ with an agenda. If you read any of his work, you’ll realize it immediately.

Quote[/b] ] So which ones were meant to be secular?

I view all of these men as scholars and historians first and foremost. This was not hidden in the post either. The mistake I made was implying that they were all secular historians without explaining my position a little better.

These men are not bound to any religious order at all. In fact they are all considered experts in History and can be trusted through their more than apparent objective points of view on the NT. They approach NT studies from a worldly, moderate view rather than a fundamentalist, conservative one. The writings testify to this fact and their work on the subject is more than acceptable by any serious student of History.

So my apologies DV, the list included a few professors that could technically be considered 'non-secular' but their positions and books on the subjects are scholarly and academically sound nonetheless. In no way can they be considered biased and having an agenda in proving evangelical Christianity.  

How should you view the rest of my research? You should be skeptical and do your own research. I trust you will find how silly the Jesus-Myth is and I believe a man of your intellect will also come to the same conclusion that the academic community has.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]These men are not bound to any religious order at all.

How can you say this when John P. Meier is a Catholic Monsignor?

Quote[/b] ]Please quote where the biographer said he ‘re-embraced’ his faith. Especially when he wrote things like this in the Story of Civilization that took most of his life to write.

Shortly thereafter, the arrival of his daughter, Ethel, slowly changed Durant's philosophy. Faced with the daily miracle of living growth, he shed his youthful atheism and returned to a more vital conception of the world. In his "mental" -- but not literal --autobiography, Transition (1927), he expressed the change with youthful sentiment:

Even before Ethel's coming I had begun to rebel against that mechanical conception of mind and history which is the illegitimate offspring of our industrial age: I had suspected that the old agricultural view of the world in terms of seed and growth did far more justice to the complexity and irrepressible expansiveness of things. But when Ethel came, I saw how some mysterious impulse, far outreaching the categories of physics, lifted her up, inch-by-inch and effort by effort, on the ladder of life. I felt more keenly than before the need of a philosophy that would do justice to the infinite vitality of nature. In the inexhaustible activity of the atom, in the endless resourcefulness of plants, in the teeming fertility of animals, in the hunger and movement of infants, in the laughter and play of children, in the love and devotion of youth, in the restless ambition of fathers and the lifelong sacrifice of mothers, in the undiscourageable researches of scientists and the sufferings of genius, in the crucifixion of prophets and the martyrdom of saints -- in all things I saw the passion of life for growth and greatness, the drama of everlasting creation. I came to think of myself, not as a dance and chaos of molecules, but as a brief and minute portion of that majestic process ... I became almost reconciled to mortality, knowing that my spirit would survive me enshrined in a fairer mold ... and that my little worth would somehow be preserved in the heritage of men. In a measure the Great Sadness was lifted from me, and, where I had seen omnipresent death, I saw now everywhere the pageant and triumph of life.

Is that clear enough?

Quote[/b] ]No, this man was not a Christian scholar like you would have everyone believe.

LOL, don't put this off on ME. I didn't lead anyone to believe something that wasn't true in the first place, that was YOUR error. HIS BIOGRAPHER describes him as a "Christian Scholar". I would think he knows him better than you do.


Will I be skeptical of your posts? Of course. But, from now on, I shall also be wary as to your "facts".

 

[Watcher]

I've already stated:

I’m more than well aware that Meier and Harris are NT scholars. I used their 6 points to illustrate how Jesus was considered a marginal Jew. They are authorities on the subject but not secular and I never said they were secular. My apologies if I didn’t make that clear.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I posted too soon, I made edits.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]HIS BIOGRAPHER describes him as a "Christian Scholar".

It doesn't matter what his biographer says, his writings contradict the statement. How do YOU reconcile the two?

 

[Watcher]

Btw, that quote is ambiguous at best. No where does it state he reconciled with Jesus Christ. Aren't you reading more into it that it actually says?

[edit]

Ultimately he may have reconciled on his deathbed like I said. However, his writings are clear about his position. He was a humanist when he wrote those things and was not a CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR.

 

[Dark Virtue]

You were so quick to point to secular authors that believed in a historical Jesus, but you can't believe a Christian author would say the things Durant did?

He may not fit YOUR definition of Christian, but he obviously fits someone's. As I have said, I doubt his biographer would make such a huge, glaring mistake.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 30 2004,8:48)]Btw, that quote is ambiguous at best. No where does it state he reconciled with Jesus Christ. Aren't you reading more into it that it actually says?

[edit]

Ultimately he may have reconciled on his deathbed like I said. However, his writings are clear about his position. He was a humanist when he wrote those things and was not a CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR.

I am reading no more into it than you are.

 

[Watcher]

Let's cut to the chase here. I have given you multiple examples of scholarly and academic opinions backed by extensive research as to why the Jesus-myth is not accepted by scholars and historians. So which side of the fence are you on?

[edit]

If you continue to cling onto the the Jesus-Myth fallacy please give me your reasons as to why you feel He was a myth and not a real person. I trust you will just come out and answer the question once and for all.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Uh...what happened to you posting YOUR findings as you said you would?

I thought I had answered this question before.

I do not believe the historical Jesus existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, divine and being the Son of God. The figure of Jesus has become as much a myth as Robin Hood and King Arthur.

I haven't flip flopped my stance on that.

I, and several others here, are waiting to view the evidence that you have and to hear the refutations you hinted at on page 2.


EDIT:

I wanted to make sure you saw my repsonse to your post on the burden of proof.

Quote[/b] ]It appears the burden of proof is on the Christian when in fact it is ALWAYS on the skeptic.

Why is this so?

If I claim to believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, would the burden fall on YOU to prove it isn't true?

If one claims to believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster, the burden of proof isn't on skepdicts, it's on the believer.

Why is Christianity different?

Quote[/b] ]Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion.

The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

 

[Watcher]

Regarding the burden of proof, I know what I believe and I'm not here to save you or prove anything to you. I'm not the Holy Spirit and sometimes Christians get caught up in trying to be the Holy Spirit. I am here to present what I believe and why. I'm here to crush any hint of false doctrine I happen to find and there's a lot of it. I'm not the one that has the problem with all of this "Christian stuff." That would be you, and because you are the one with the issue, the burden of proof to invalidate the Christian faith rests on you the skeptic.

Let me give you a hint by saying skeptics have been trying for 2000 years and have yet to crack Christianity. The reason? You can't. So every argument you can posit from an atheist's perspective, there is a reasonable theological response. The reality is, it's an impasse.

This is where the element of faith comes in so ultimately, you and I are throwing around the same arguments that have been going around for years. Will you deconvert me? No. Will I convert you? No. The only hope for you DV is the Holy Spirit Himself. My job is to present you the gospel and what you do with it is between you and Him. In the end, you will be held accountable whether you like it or not.

Regarding the "evidence," I'll point you to some great information from Holding's site that refutes those standard atheist responses to the ancient secular historians you posted on page 2. However, that will have to wait until tomorrow when I have some more time.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 30 2004,11:12)]Regarding the burden of proof, I know what I believe and I'm not here to save you or prove anything to you. I'm not the Holy Spirit and sometimes Christians get caught up in trying to be the Holy Spirit. I am here to present what I believe and why. I'm here to crush any hint of false doctrine I happen to find and there's a lot of it. I'm not the one that has the problem with all of this "Christian stuff." That would be you, and because you are the one with the issue, the burden of proof to invalidate the Christian faith rests on you the skeptic.

No, the burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion. Atheism does not (necessarily) make any positive assertions -- it is the theist, who positively asserts the existence of a "god", on whose shoulders the burden of proof rests.

Quote[/b] ]Let me give you a hint by saying skeptics have been trying for 2000 years and have yet to crack Christianity. The reason? You can't. So every argument you can posit from an atheist's perspective, there is a reasonable theological response.

Argumentum ad antiquitatum. Just because it has survived for 2000 years does not validate it, or even give it an ounce of strength. Surely you acknowledge that there are other religions out there that have been around much longer than Christianity (i.e. Hinduism) or for a very substantial amount of time (Islam), and these you very quickly dismiss. To paraphrase Steven Roberts, once you see why antiquity doesn't support any other religion, you'll see why it doesn't support yours, either.

Quote[/b] ]The reality is you can't definitively prove your points nor can we.

No, the problem is that theists continually plug their ears and close their eyes, clinging to superstition rather than embracing reason. You aren't one to speak on "reality"...

Quote[/b] ]That's where the element of faith comes in so ultimately, you and I are throwing around the same arguments that have been going around for years. Will you deconvert me? No. Will I convert you? No. The only hope for you DV is the Holy Spirit Himself. My job is to present you the gospel and what you do with it is between you and Him. In the end, you will be held accountable whether you like it or not.

Watcher, we will cotinue throwing around the same arguments that have been going around for years. Will you convert me? Will I deconvert you? Probably not. The only hope for you, Watcher, is your brain.

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the "proof," I'll point you to some great links from Holding's site that refute your standard atheist responses to the ancient secular historians you posted on page 1. That will, however, have to wait until tomorrow when I have more time

I can't wait for this...


Edited for content - Gen