Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tigress DEM

(7,887 posts)
75. Per Wiki: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:28 AM
Jan 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

<snip>
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7]

^ a b c In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

^ Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61

^ a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

^ a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

^ a b c d Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

^ a b James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

^ a b c The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".


ROMAN HISTORY

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

<snip>
Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "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 Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,


A layman's opinion of the conflicting scholarly reports:

http://www.historian.net/NTHX.html

<clip>
YeSHUa bar YoSEF (Jesus) was born on Yom Kippur, October 3, 7 BCE in the village of Bethlehem during a registration instituted by Augustus on an occasion when he was enraged at Herod's behavior. This registration was overseen by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and was a preliminary to a direct Roman taxation. The taxation from this registration in 7/6 BCE was delayed as a result of Herod's age and health. The even more outrageous behavior of Herod's successor, Archelaus, who was deposed, and infighting among the other Herodian scions, convinced Augustus to institute a praefecture and the first official Roman census and taxation in 6 CE and to liquidate the estate of the deposed Archelaus.(4) It is this official first census in Syria that confuses scholars regarding the birth of Jesus since Quirinius again was sent by Caesar as legate under the new prefecture. Coponius accompanied Quirinius and was the first prefect.


IMO, the greatest danger of practicing religion is that it trains one to evaluate life issues ladjf Jan 2013 #1
There really is no true objectivity. Even science cannot withstand the role of the self. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #6
Yeah it is. Iggo Jan 2013 #3
Religion and Government are societal mirrors. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #4
Even so. Iggo Jan 2013 #22
Religions are numerous and they are pliable. There is the religion of Tibetan Buddhism which Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #25
That's wonderful news. Iggo Jan 2013 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #5
Disagree with your premise. Deep13 Jan 2013 #7
Religion is a symbolism of what the mind cannot possibly grasp. There are no gods no, but there is Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #8
So if you can't grasp it skepticscott Jan 2013 #9
1000's of years anecdotal history of spiritual experience by my ancestors, and my own personal Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #10
And what about the thousands of years skepticscott Jan 2013 #11
I'm a fool, scott. But I have spent decades thinking about religion. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #12
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #13
Do you understand symbolism at all? nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #14
"anecdotal history"? mr blur Jan 2013 #15
I don't see why thousands of years of history should be dismissed? You can even place this history Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #17
As I mentioned in your other thread, deucemagnet Jan 2013 #35
The central premise of religion was never meant to withstand the "evidence" you are talking about. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #36
Hey! Where'd those goalposts go? n/t deucemagnet Jan 2013 #37
Whoosh. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #38
So would you agree, then, that belief in religion is irrational? deucemagnet Jan 2013 #40
My Whoosh comment was meant to return a glib reply. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #43
But my glib reply was a response to a dishonest argument. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #48
You're not seeing what religion is actually about. Religion is very simple, it needs no evidence, Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #50
OK, if you're not going to answer my question, deucemagnet Jan 2013 #52
You think that the statements are exclusive, i get it. They are not. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #53
Rational and irrational tama Jan 2013 #83
Can you actually SEE a Black Hole or do you understand it by other means? Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #54
No one has ever claimed that skepticscott Jan 2013 #59
Because no one has ever gone through a black hole and come back with factual data. Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #72
Who says it's not? And, No. nt mr blur Jan 2013 #16
Did you read what I wrote? nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #19
No, Religion IS a Problem dballance Jan 2013 #18
That is all a misunderstanding of religion on either side. That is precisely the issue I wrote Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #20
So much of what religion teaches is fact based, you are cherry picking fundamentalist teachings.... Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #55
I love your reply...Thanks Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #56
Welome to the religion group, Tigress DEM. cbayer Jan 2013 #60
"Jesus was a person who lived." How can you possibly know that? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #61
He is documented historically. That Jesus lived is a fact. It's been investigated ad naseum. Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #71
No. It. Is. Not. A. Fact. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #73
Per Wiki: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #75
*sigh* cleanhippie Jan 2013 #77
There is actually according to "The Jesus Dynasty" tremendous amounts of historical records of Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #80
If there are "tremendous amounts" of historical records, where are they? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #81
Josephus the Jewish historian. Some prime evidence is the existence of the oral history that led Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #85
So no "tremndous amount" of anything. Got it. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #86
Jesus almost certainly existed just based on this, like it or not. Nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #87
Oh yes, almost certainly... cleanhippie Jan 2013 #88
You really think Josephus's writings are completely fraudulent. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #89
No, I think it is anything but certain. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #90
I separate the "supernatural stuff" from the person. There doesn't Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #91
Perhaps my point is just this... cleanhippie Jan 2013 #92
I tend to agree. I wonder on the other hand what inspired Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #93
Control and power. Nothing more, nothing less. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #94
From a historical standpoint sure... Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #95
Actual scholarship doesn't work with okasha Jan 2013 #82
You might try thinking a little more deeply about this skepticscott Jan 2013 #62
The best answer to the question of why should I go to church came from a priest many years ago. rug Jan 2013 #21
That is really the essence of the spiritual path vs the religious. They each fulfill their time Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #24
Translation skepticscott Jan 2013 #28
Translation rug Jan 2013 #29
Yes, of course skepticscott Jan 2013 #42
Which is of course not the topic; it's your monomania. rug Jan 2013 #44
Hmmmm...the topic you raised skepticscott Jan 2013 #63
Wrong again. rug Jan 2013 #66
Yes, the Catholic Church became a powerful component in the world. Still is. Tigress DEM Jan 2013 #74
You'd be hard-pressed to find a Church of Taoism to offer a bribe to. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #34
When ruggie joins one skepticscott Jan 2013 #41
Well scottie, it seems it's you, scottie, not him accusing me of having a "myopic worldview". rug Jan 2013 #45
No, I won't "own those words" skepticscott Jan 2013 #49
You guys know the rules. No fighting in hippie threads. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #51
You, scottie, not him, used those words in connection with my name. rug Jan 2013 #57
He used those words in connection skepticscott Jan 2013 #64
And you, in your typical fashion, singled out one person, me. rug Jan 2013 #65
I know how especially sensitive skepticscott Jan 2013 #67
I am more sensitive to assholes. rug Jan 2013 #68
Yawn skepticscott Jan 2013 #69
I'm taking it up with you, since you brought me into your weird little subthread. rug Jan 2013 #70
Sorry, I have no clue what your talking about. Could you rephrase? I am a fool after-all: Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #46
No it isn't and no it's not, respectively. JoeyT Jan 2013 #23
So true...to actually present a religious conservative with The Beatitudes is almost comical, if not libdem4life Jan 2013 #27
Yes it is. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #33
I think we really don't "need" religion but the fact is that by account of a spiritual path there Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #31
There's also saying tama Jan 2013 #84
Your citations of spirituality, can be stated as Road House Rule #1... immoderate Jan 2013 #30
Yep. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #32
"....the answer my friend is blowing in the wind...." madrchsod Jan 2013 #39
Indeed. A koan if there ever was one. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #47
I doubt there is any answer. Jim__ Jan 2013 #58
Religion is the byproduct of a master's teaching disintegrated by the ego's that follow. Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #78
You cannot fight lies with lies DonCoquixote Jan 2013 #76
You cannot combat a misunderstanding with a misunderstanding is more apt. nt Flabbergasted Jan 2013 #79
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Religion is not the Probl...»Reply #75