The God Who Wasn't There

I recently got hold of the DVD documentary called “The God Who Wasn't There.” I highly recommend it.

This documentary makes an almost overwhelming case that Jesus was actually a mythical hero figure (almost exactly like a number of others) whom Christian advocates later attempted to insert into the historical record, making "various stabs at it" to quote one of the experts interviewed.

Here are some of the points made in the film:

-- The story of Jesus' life is almost identical to the stories of other ancient mythical hero figures such as Romulus, Zeus, and Hercules to name just a few. In fact, the story of Jesus' supposed life is a classical “hero archetype” story, scoring a very high 19 out of 22 on the "hero scale" taken from a book of ancient folklore referenced in one of the expert interviews.

-- There is a gap of at least 40 years from the time of Jesus' supposed death around 33 AD, and the appearance of the first Gospels around 70 AD or later.

Almost all we have of Jesus' supposed existence on Earth during this period come from the writings of Saul (the Apostle Paul) who does not place Jesus on earth in his writings, and does not even appear to be aware of the concept of Jesus as a human who lived on Earth.

-- There were a number of stories about when and how Jesus actually died, and who killed him, not just the one Christians know today. If he really had lived near the time that these stories were being circulated, then why all the confusion?

-- Historian Richard Carrier reports that the authors of the Gospels (starting with Mark) probably didn't even think they were writing history, with the possible exception of Luke.

So what does all this have to do with politics? Plenty.

As is pointed out in the film, 44% of Americans believe that Jesus is coming back within 50 years, or that this is probably the case. Well, if you believe this, then there's no need to do anything about preventing global warming, or a catastrophic nuclear war, because the earth will soon be destroyed anyway, with Jesus coming back to take the good people to heaven. This is exactly what many Christians actually believe.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not formulate policy that way.

Dealing rationally with problems that threaten our existence is challenging enough without introducing the irrationality of theism. In this advanced technological world we now live in, with nuclear weapons, threats of overpopulation, and dwindling resources, we humans can no longer afford to keep 1 foot rooted in ancient mythology.

Jesus, man, myth or both...

The true Jesus.

Jesus fits the Hero traits of Joseph Campbell, IIRC.

it's that those of us left behind deserve whatever blighted world they leave us.

before they do any more damage? Oh, and take the bloody SUV's with them when they go.

I especially enjoyed the info about how Jesus had a lot in common with previous hero figures (who were fictional).

I have read well documented and well defended positions about Jesus being first a mythical figure and then later on there was an attempt to create a historical Jesus. So Jesus was a mythical figure but then turned into the historical figure for whatever need.

I will check this DVD out. It sounds really interesting! Thanks for the recommendation :thumbsup:

There were specific cults to Hercules and other demi-gods or godmen in the Empire at that time and after the popularity of Christianity competition may have been two way, not just Gentile Christians borrowing down. the Mithraic cults were more popular in the military and were often vying with the fundamentalist strength of the Christian soldier.

The plague of strange popular culture invading the Church was more alarming then than it is now. The first generation of apostles and witnesses vanishing in a pre-literate Church left scads of Gnostics, a Jewish Christian community more in disarray with the persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. No fixed and communicating center as we see the Vatican today. The first attempt for a canonized fixed scripture was a heretic effort, cult within a cult weirdness trying to strip away so much Jewish influence as to brand "Jehovah" as the evil spirit. The Jews began writing their own fenced off Sscipture having lost their land heritage and expelling the Christians.

The Gospel of Mark lashed out against the whole thing, both the Apostles with the tradition of Jewish triumphalism and the the notion of the superman, superhuman Messiah, a god man the Greeks could relate to. It was centered on the Holy Week liturgy and a collection of sayings and works of Jesus. It may not have been much of a clear philosophical presentation against more mainstream views of Jesus, but it brought back the brutal truth and the basic faith: that the words of Jesus were revolutionary and opposed by everyone expecting tradition or change to folow the popular conception. That men's definitions had nothing to do with him or the truth. That he was crucified, brutally killed and no getting around it and no title or cult or subsequent apotheosis greater than the reality. The Gospel ends with an obvious addition, a resurrection appearance and words no Jesus in Mark's Gospel would have uttered. So there you have the very uncomfortable juxtaposition of two schools, that does not cast the triumphalism of the latter in a victoriously favorable light. The ending of that Gospel really is that the women fled after the message from the angels without telling anyone anything, the apostles none the wiser. More to make a point than good history or even a satisfying tale or something to close a liturgy with. The ending of Job is very similar- as is the subsequent softer add-on ending. That all those people(Risen Christ witnesses) who are looked up to(now dead) in a pyramid of institutional awe have no advantage over anyone who knows only the blunt fact of the cross. Mark even goes farther to say it all to the contrary, to leave the revelatory power at the undeniable cross(where the apostles were absent in fear).

Just because Mark is more existential and anti-authoritarian does not make him less the bearer of faith message and the salvation history, but one can feel in the heat of the man's writing the fervor of the idealist versus the authority and the crowd. Subsequent additions, like the fix to the radical Gospel, brought it more in line with the mainstream which encompassed the fairy tale with the legendary esteem of the apostles, but never able to erase the genuine preservation(in Mark's terms and interpretation) of jarring elements of the Teacher's life and words. But it is decidedly not rigorous history in any of its written forms, nor completely resolved in all the traditions that we still see splitting and radicalizing or hardening all the time. We all love to unrealistically fantasize our heros and just plain miss the real humanity and heroism. Casting stones at the first century slave population and their broken culture is not very becoming if we just think about our praise or condemnation of various candidates for political messiah.

It took many centuries for people even to begin the hopeless task of trying to find the "Jesus" facts and most of what can be discovered is how and who interpreted what, why, and in what context. The sense of Jesus having been "invented" is thus inescapable and frustrating so that an easy answer would be to leave it at that and dismiss the "inventors" as well- lumping them inevitably with the Inquisition, the favorite tag symbol of faith crime. The life of Buddha suffered as well with remoteness from first generation witnesses and splits and controversies in the interpretation- with many going directly against the obvious desire of the Enlightened One that he be not deemed Divine.

So Jesus did not make clay birds come to life for simple amusement or cast death rays from his eyes as he gloated at the death of his enemies. Walking on water was in as were healing miracles, the feeding of the crowds and other things emblematic of messianic signs done in the small not with apocalypse and angel armies with super special effects. And none of those things were important nor were people's opinions or dumb ideas as much as the spiritual point that confronted them with radical change and decision. Any hint of a hero archetype or awesome power was something that got in the way as much as the evil that was removed(death, illness, storm) got in the way, only worse. They came quite close to shutting out the connection and leaving in glorified obstacles but enough is always there in the texts to simply set aside all the wonderman aspects, all the unknown and the legendary- and have something shared, totally apart from stock in trade heros of any sort, something more in itself than any miracle or story.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://missy.reimer.com/library/scale.html

Lord Raglan, in The Hero (1936) has classified the parallel life-patterns of the mythical hero of tradition into twenty-two archetypal incidents, as noted below. The higher a particular hero scores, the closer he is to the UR-archetype of the sacred hero-king of prehistoric religious ritual; a historical hero is likely to share rather few of the mythical characteristics.

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin.
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. reared by foster-parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. on reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12. he marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. prescribes laws but
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17. is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death
19. often at the top of a hill.
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.

Undoubtedly historical personages always score lower than six . . .

Many of these elements actually go all the way back to a story-type which may be as old as mankind, since it is found all over the world in essentially similar form. Set in the Dreamtime, it tells of how an ogre or monster seizes and devours everyone in the village, except for one woman (sometimes described as the chief's wife) who escapes. Some months later she gives birth to a son who displays superhuman strength and grows to maturity with miraculous speed. This son of a widow or virgin then returns to the village, kills the monster, cuts it open, and restores the people to life.

This pattern is obviously the prototype of many of points #1-11 in the above scheme. (The others were added in the Bronze Age when it became necessary to modify the original savior-hero type to support the new institutions of kingship and organized religion.) It also corresponds to certain aspects of the Jesus-story that are not among Raglan's 22 points, such as the miraculous childhood (confounding the rabbis) or the rescuing of the people from the monster's belly (harrowing of Hell.)

And as far as why it is important to point this stuff out -- Christianity has always claimed a privileged status among the world's religions on the grounds that its founding myth is also literal historical truth. This has frequently made it difficult for Christians to play well with others. If the story of Jesus were recognized as a-historical myth, and the Way of Jesus as just one among many co-equal paths, a great number of the distortions in Western culture could be removed.

I reckon he scores 10 at most (1,4,5,6, arguably 7 (the flight to Egypt, but I'm not sure if that counts as 'spirited away'), 11 (counting resisting temptation by Satan - a push, that one), 15, 16, 19, and arguably 21 (buried but tomb vacated soon).

Sounds like the film is pushing the boundaries of truth as much as the Gospels are :evilgrin:

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin. - well, she is a virgin.

2. His father is a king and -maybe not exactly, but didn't descend from a king?

3. often a near relative of the mother, but - not really

4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and - check

5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god - check

6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but - not really, but wasn't there a king trying to kill him (or all boys of his age)?

7. He is spirited away, and - hmm, thats a stretch

8. reared by foster-parents in a far country. -nah.

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but -check

10. on reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom. -check (comes back and starts preaching)

11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast - check. Not just satan, but he gains a lot of worshippers from the church of the time...could be thought of as a victory.

12. he marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and - nope

13. becomes king. - maybe not literally, but close (King of Jews?)

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and - nah

15. prescribes laws but - okay

16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and - yep

17. is driven from from the throne and the city after which - he is driven to his execution by the people who followed him, the jews...so I would give this a yes.

18. He meets with a mysterious death -nothing to mysterious about being crucified.

19. often at the top of a hill. yep

20. His children, if any, do not succeed him. no children succeed him so..yep

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless - technically.....

22. he has one or more holy sepulchres. Put in tomb by himself? Meh, I don't know about this one.


I give him a score of about 15, and yeah, thats stretching it. Definitely not 19, if this list was what the comment is based one.

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin. - well, she is a virgin. OK, I count this

2. His father is a king and -maybe not exactly, but didn't descend from a king? err, well, about 20 generations away from a king. In a nation the size of Judea, most people should manage that. He was a carpenter.

3. often a near relative of the mother, but - not really agreed

4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and - check agreed

5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god - check agreed

6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but - not really, but wasn't there a king trying to kill him (or all boys of his age)? yes, Herod - so this one counts

7. He is spirited away, and - hmm, thats a stretch yes, a stretch

8. reared by foster-parents in a far country. -nah. agreed

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but -check yes, we are - there's the story of him amazing the rabbis with his knowledge

10. on reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom. -check (comes back and starts preaching) no - he went back in early childhood, and had an uneventful early adulthood, only doing anything special when he reached the age of 30

11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast - check. Not just satan, but he gains a lot of worshippers from the church of the time...could be thought of as a victory. well, that's not a victory. He gained a few followers

12. he marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and - nope agreed

13. becomes king. - maybe not literally, but close (King of Jews?) no, he didn't - he was a rebel. "King of the Jews" was the false charge against him

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and - nah agreed

15. prescribes laws but - okay agreed

16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and - yep agreed (with the people)

17. is driven from from the throne and the city after which - he is driven to his execution by the people who followed him, the jews...so I would give this a yes. he's set up by the Jewish authorities - when he comes to the city of Jerusalem

18. He meets with a mysterious death -nothing to mysterious about being crucified. agreed

19. often at the top of a hill. yep agreed

20. His children, if any, do not succeed him. no children succeed him so..yep I think, since he wasn't a king, you can't count a point about 'succeeding' him

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless - technically.....yes, sort of

22. he has one or more holy sepulchres. Put in tomb by himself? Meh, I don't know about this one. the location of the 'holy sepulchre' was made up around Constantine's time for a focal point, so I don't think this counts - that's after all the story had been fixed

You agreed with most of it. You didn't disagree with "quite a lot of it". :evilgrin:

Your disagreements are valid, however. In any case, it is a stretch fitting it in those points. It still reads like mythology, however. I don't know how many of those points would fit Hercules, either.

2- Jesus is born of the Davidic Line (Son of a King) plus he is the Son of the Highest King.
3- Mary is also of the Davidic Line
8- Where was Jesus during those formative years? I've read India and Egypt (far away land)


+3 points

and if by "Son of the Highest King" you mean "son of God", then that's point 5 - counting it twice is cheating :evilgrin:. But the point is that he ought to be a real 'royal son' to fit the heroic story - someone like Theseus (son of one king, grandson of a king of a different kingdom). Interestingly, you could put forward Moses as a reversal of the archetypal hero - born to a typical Hebrew woman, hidden from the pharoah who threatened to kill all Hebrew children, and then fostered by the pharaoh's daughter - but he retuned to his people when he grew up.

One gospel says he was in Egypt until Herod died (which was actually 4BC - the calendar wasn't calculated very well, but would be when Jesus was very young). But that wasn't with 'foster-parents' - that was with the parents who were considered candidates for questions 2 and 3.

he was one of the two figures--the other was Oedipus--on whom Raglan based his scale. To say that Jesus is fictional because he fits a checklist explicitly modelled on him by a scholar who assumed a priori that he was fictional is as fine a bit of circular reasoning as ever rolled downhill.

BTW, the historical Richard III comes out at 17 on the scale; his brother Edward scores 11; the pretender Perkin Warbeck scores 10 on the assumption that he wasn't the son of Edward IV, higher if he was; Charles II and Mary Queen of Scots (with suitable gender changes) also both come out at 12, etc., etc.. In other words, the scale is excellent for dealing with literary characters (including Jesus, as a literary character, taking the Bible as one integrated narrative) but it's not much use for determining who is and who isn't historical.

All of the myths racked up in the gospels that put Jesus on the same turf as Mithras never enter into Paul's epistles. Paul, after all, is the founder of the Christian religion. Religious cult leaders were a dime a dozen back then. It's entirely probable that Paul hitched his wagon to one of the local zealots and convinced other early Christians that his selection was indeed the Jewish Messiah. The myths were added layer to make Jesus sound more divine.

The myths are more likely to have accrued to an actual historical figure, probably as part of the process whereby the early Church tried to make Jesus a better fit to the religious sensibilities of the non Jewish population of the Roman Empire.

Descriptions of Jesus as a dying and resurrected savior go back to the 1st century. All the other stuff -- about his family, disciples, incidents of his life, historical specifics of his death, etc. -- doesn't show up until the early-mid second century.

It's also been pointed out that when those specifics do get added, they appear to be the work of people who had no personal knowledge of either the geography or the actual history of early 1st century Palestine. (The alleged census, for example, is totally bogus.)

Moreover, many of these items appear to have been designed to match up with particular Old Testament prophecies (or passages that could be taken as prophecies). There are, to my knowledge, absolutely zero of the kind of telling details that you'd expect to find in a narrative originally based on the real events in the real life of a real man at a real time and place.

"Saul (the Apostle Paul) does not place Jesus on earth in his writings, and does not even appear to be aware of the concept of Jesus as a human who lived on Earth. He's not aware of most of the story of Jesus' life on Earth. Events he does describe, like the crucifiction and resurection, take place in a non-Earthly/mythical realm."

If you disagree, be specific and reference what you are talking about.

(Quotations from the searchable King James version on the Internet)

Romans 1:3: Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...

Romans 5:6-8: 6] For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
<7> For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
<8> But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

This is what I find just in Romans.

Paul isn't about biography, so he doesn't tell the stories related in the four Gospels. He's a philosopher. There's undoubtedly an oral tradition about the life of Jesus circulating during his time, probably spread by first-hand and second-hand witnesses, because everyone evidently understands what he's talking about when he refers to Christ being crucified and rising from the dead.

During Paul's time, there are still plenty of people around who knew Jesus first-hand. As they start dying off, the Gospels are written, much as we've seen a lot of writing about World War II as the actual combatants reach the ends of their lives.

"(Quotations from the searchable King James version on the Internet)

Romans 1:3: Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh..."

Can you copy in more with more context?

"Romans 5:6-8: 6] For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
<7> For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
<8> But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I don't see how these place him on Earth. It's the film's claim that Jesus existed for Paul in a non-worldy realm.

"Paul isn't about biography, so he doesn't tell the stories related in the four Gospels."

Or maybe Paul knew nothing about them b/c they were invented later by the authors of the gospels.

"There's undoubtedly an oral tradition about the life of Jesus circulating during his time, probably spread by first-hand and second-hand witnesses, because everyone evidently understands what he's talking about when he refers to Christ being crucified and rising from the dead."

This could simply be folklore handed down from one generation to the next as is the case w/ Romulus or Hercules for example.

"During Paul's time, there are still plenty of people around who knew Jesus first-hand."

How could you know this? Can you name one known to history?

"As they start dying off, the Gospels are written, much as we've seen a lot of writing about World War II as the actual combatants reach the ends of their lives."

IF Jesus had lived, not many of his contemporaries would have been alive for even the first gospels starting w/ Mark 40 years after his death at the very least. Even more for the rest.

One final question: Are you open to the possibilty that the Jesus spoken of in the bible is actually a mythical figure who never existed?

existence of any person from that era who wasn't a high official.

I've had this argument so many times in this forum, talking about what constitutes historical evidence and the fact that historical evidence is lacking for lots of things that are more recent than 2000 years ago.

I could talk about the disciples being willing to die for their faith. Would anyone die for something they KNEW to be a fiction? Would George Lucas go to his death insisting that Star Wars is true?

Not only am I tired of this argument, because certain people are determined to INSIST that Jesus was fictional, and not even admit the POSSIBILITY that he really existed, no matter how many historical parallels I draw, but I am working on a translation job that is due in a couple of hours, so if it makes you happy to think that Jesus is fictional, that's fine with me.

Yes, all the passages I cite are from Paul. Romans is considered one of his authentic letters based on writing style. Others, such as First and Second Timothy were most likely written by others under his name, a common practice in the ancient world.

where he or she didn't quickly become bitter. I thought you might be an exception, but I guess not. But let's have a look at some of the things of substance that you did say:

"...it's difficult to prove the existence of any person from that era who wasn't a high official."

This is exactly one of the points that leads me to doubt the idea that Jesus ever existed at all, especially when you couple that fact with the unmistakable similarities between Jesus's story, and the story of other mythical hero figures.

"I've had this argument so many times in this forum, talking about what constitutes historical evidence and the fact that historical evidence is lacking for lots of things that are more recent than 2000 years ago."

This argument works in both directions. If history has difficulties solidifying things more recent than 2000 years ago, then it stands to reason that establishing Jesus as a real historical figure is that much more difficult a challenge.

"I could talk about the disciples being willing to die for their faith. Would anyone die for something they KNEW to be a fiction? Would George Lucas go to his death insisting that Star Wars is true?"

The disciples may have simply deluded themselves into believing it, just as today's Christians do. That does not make it real.

"Yes, all the passages I cite are from Paul. Romans is considered one of his authentic letters based on writing style. Others, such as First and Second Timothy were most likely written by others under his name, a common practice in the ancient world."

This seems to make things even more murky. Now we're not even sure if this was written by some guy named Paul who said he had a vision, or just some guy.

"Not only am I tired of this argument, because certain people are determined to INSIST that Jesus was fictional, and not even admit the POSSIBILITY that he really existed, no matter how many historical parallels I draw, but I am working on a translation job that is due in a couple of hours, so if it makes you happy to think that Jesus is fictional, that's fine with me."

I am definitely open to the possibility that Jesus was a real man who lived. I just think it's unlikely. Even assuming he actually did live, there will probably never be any way to prove it now - unless someone can convince me otherwise with hard evidence.

For whatever it's worth, I don't enjoy making people who believe in God or believe in the Bible uncomfortable. I'm just not sure there's any choice anymore. I'm convinced theism is destructive, in part because it leads straight to irrationality.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who goes around telling the truth will probably end up broke with no friends if they're not killed first. You're probably better off selling a pile of BS like L Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith did, or quite frankly the apostle Paul did way back when. He was a guy saying he had a vision, going around trying to get people to believe it just like they were. (This seems to be how all religions start, if you go back far enough.)

You'll go much further in life telling people there's a benevolent god out there, and they're going to live forever in some kind of paradise if they follow the right god. (Hell, I'd believe it myself if I'd could. But I know I'd just be lying to myself.) The trouble is, theism leads to much more suffering here on earth, in the only lives we do have.

Would anyone die for something they KNEW to be a fiction?

This logically means that Mormonism is true. As is just about every other freaking religion on earth. They all have their martyrs - people who have gone to their graves, sometimes quite painfully, without renouncing their faith. Christianity is not unique in this regard. Far from it.

in the same sense that the apostles did. He and his brother were killed by a mob that stormed the jail where they were being held on charges of destroying the offices of a newspaper that had criticized them.

If someone had said to him, "Admit that you made up the Book of Mormon or we'll kill you," then his death would be analogous to that of the apostles.

But that's not what happened. Basically, he was lynched while being held in jail on criminal charges (destruction of someone else's property) only tangentially related to his religious activities.

If you're going to restrict your requirements to someone who was explicitly given the chance to renounce their religious beliefs or die, you're going to knock out quite a few of your very own Christians too.

But regardless, there ARE people in just about every religion who WERE given that choice and did not renounce their faith. And even lots of Christians who believed in a very different Christianity than you. So my point still stands quite intact - Christianity is not in any way unique, nor does the existence of martyrs give any single faith any kind of advantage over others, or over non-belief.

specifically given the choice of renouncing their faith or being killed.

Do you have documented, 1st party evidence of this?

Or is it just something you strongly believe?

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/die-for-lie-wont-fly.html



Truly, Lydia, I view this argument as a form of religious superiority and by extension, religious bigotry. You are claiming that your religion alone is special, and has these people who supposedly died rather than renounce it. I.e., your religion is absolutely true and all others are absolutely false. I don't think that is a healthy or liberal viewpoint.

Anyway, I know I'm not going to convince you and that you don't consider my type of arguments as valid, and this shows signs of disintegrating into recreational arguing, so I'm done.

I mean, you are quite plainly claiming here that no other religions have genuine martyrs like yours does. That yours is therefore true because of those martyrs, and thus all others are false. This is normally the type of thinking I would see on Rapture Ready or FSTDT, so I'm confused and would like you to explain.

Please clarify if I have misunderstood you.

I was saying that the fact that the apostles (the people who would have known Jesus directly) were willing to die rather than deny him suggests that he really existed, aside from any claims of divinity. In other words, I'm saying that when atheists claim not only that Jesus wasn't divine but never existed in any form or wasn't even a real person to whom legends accrued, they're ignoring the evidence of the apostles.

It's a matter of indifference to me whether you believe Jesus was divine, but saying that there absolutely was never any such person is as much a matter of faith as anything I believe.

Personally, I believe that there are many paths to communion with the ultimate force in the universe. This happens to be mine.

After all, you claim A) that your religion has martyrs and B) that no other religion's martyrs were truly martyrs. Well, you only addressed Joseph Smith and not the martyrs of any other religion but since you didn't even bother what other conclusion could I come to?

Regardless, Lydia, we do not know with 100% accuracy how these apostles died. The books of the bible bearing their names weren't written down until a generation or two (or three) later. You are taking for granted the factual accuracy of the bible in areas where there is absolutely no justifiable reason to do so. (Other than religious faith, which is of course begging the question.)

Their deaths may have been quite ordinary, but were later embellished by other Christians to build legitimacy into their religion. You've got to remember, these were largely illiterate people without adequate means to transmit information accurately. You don't think details couldn't have gotten a bit altered or exaggerated before being finally written down?

Sure, there may have been a person named Jesus on whom the stories of the biblical Jesus were loosely based. (Bringing in elements from the mythical hero stories as listed on this thread.) It is not honest to say that this it takes equal faith to believe in the Jesus of the bible as to not believe. The only evidence we have FOR his existence comes from unreliable and biased sources. Or do you think that it takes equal amounts of faith to believe or disbelieve in Zeus?

further, because I also know that if people are going to become religious, it's not through logic or argument but through experience.

As I said, no recreational arguing. I've heard your arguments; you've heard mine. So I'm done for the evening.

I would have liked to have known exactly what I misunderstood. You seem to indicate that your religion's martyrs count, but no one else's do, and you don't seem particularly interested in analyzing what we know about this Jesus character and exactly how we know it. 'These guys died, so that's good enough for me' is about it.

I'm shocked that no one has mentioned the thousands of Muslim suicide bombers in response to the idea that only Christian martyrs "count."

If we're basing truth claims on actual human beings who are willing to die for their faith, then the Muslims win hands down and we'd all better start praying towards Mecca five times a day.

NT!

Paul is generally undisputed as the author of First Corinthians. He specifically refers to Peter, whom he also talks about in Galatians (also undisputed authorship). So the claims of earthly resurrection that the gospels and Acts make, and the appearances to people that knew Jesus when alive, do appear in Pauline epistles as well.

That doesn't make the resurrection etc. true, of course, but it does show that Paul believed them, and knew the 'eye-witnesses'.

..I am looking forward to seeing this thruthumentary

..I am looking forward to seeing this thruthumentary

This was moved from the general forum to here where few peope go. My other thread was quickly locked. Other folks talk about any and everything on the general forum and are usually left alone.

Explicitly religious-themed threads get moved here. Gun threads (when there's not a mass shooting dominating the news) go the Gun dungeon. Israel/Palestine to I/P, 911 to 911, etc.

Basically in the same category as King Arthur, Midas, Minos, etc. I think there was a wandering Jewish holy man named "Yeshua Ben Joseph" wandering around Judea in the early 1st Century AD, and that he was likely executed because his teachinngs threatened the power of the Jewish priesthood and risked causing a nativist revolt against Rome.

Then Saul of Tarsus had an epileptic fit that caused him to "see Jesus" and the rest was history. When Greeks and Romans starting converting to the new cult St. Paul was preaching the cult then absorbed bits and pieces of the various mystery religions, pagan myths, and forms of Neo-Plationic mysticism floating around the empire.

may indeed have existed.

Will you acknowledge that there is a possibilty he did not?

since the only accounts of him are from one person, Plato.

didn't exist.

Here is something I found written by none other than historian Richard Carrier, who was featured in the documentary that inspired this thread, about the Socrates argument that Christians attempt to use to help make the case for Jesus.

Speaking of Jesus and Socrates, he wrote:

“It is true that neither left us any writings, so their ideas only come to us second-hand. However, in the first place, this is not much comfort. For in fact, no expert regards the thought of Socrates as reliably known, precisely because we only have it through the filter of others. ***Since Socratic studies are always prefaced with the caveat that the findings will be speculative, uncertain and limited, one cannot claim any more for the study of Jesus.*** (emphasis added.) Christians are too ready to underplay this problem. And for them it is a problem, in a much more serious way than for scholars of Socrates.

But the situation is even worse than that. For the similarities end there. The differences in source situation between the thought of Socrates and the thought of Jesus all weigh heavily toward diluting the reliability of the sources for Jesus in comparison with Socrates. Thus, they are not in the same boat after all. Socrates is significantly better off.”

(end snip)

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_on_jesus.htm

But this is all beside the point. Let me ask you again:

My beliefs about Socrates aside, do *you* acknowledge the possibilty, however slight, that Jesus may not have existed?

So if a fundamentalist is willing to acknowledge that evolution "might" have occurred, then it's somehow incumbent on me--or you, or Lydia or whoever--to acknowledge "the possibilty, however slight," that Genesis might be science?

You may not realize it, but you're beating a horse that was bare bones long ago. There's a kind of mini-industry surrounding the notion that Jesus never existed, and every example I've come across makes the same tired arguments that are impressive only to people who aren't familiar with the subject. Kind of like Midnight Globe making an "overwhelming" case for aliens landing at Roswell, complete with pics, you know?

Do yourself a favor and do some fact checking. If you do, you'll find, among other things, that the Mithraic cult from which Jesus was supposedly derived post-dates him by a century or two, that Paul writes very clearly about a human Jesus with human relatives, and that the Raglan scale is really irrelevant except when discussing the Bible as literature. And that's just for starters.

I'm not saying a historical Jesus did not exist but there is a chance he didn't and the tiring part is the BS people say that the argument against a historical Jesus only impresses people with no knowledge with the subject.

Maybe if you find a replacement for your Santa Claus you would lighten up a little and see that your dismissal is nothing but a desperate way of clinging to a belief that, if proven otherwise, it would shatter your world.

So far the arguments for a historical Jesus I have seen are all based on generalities. So lighten up!

The arguments invariably cited in these threads don't impress people with any knowledge of the subject. Deal with it.

You might look before you make assumptions, by the way. When was the last time you saw a Christian sporting a pentagram?

And, uhm, lighten up. :eyes:

...your pentagram and your eager to dismiss those who have a different opinion on the subject when their issue is not lack of knowledge on the subject but not buying into the generalities as proof to the existence of a historical Jesus. I find it odd but, who knows, sometimes the ends justify the means. I am not saying this is your case but I have seen it all.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of the existence of Jesus and I accept that a historical Jesus probably existed but we can only really prove it by desperately connecting the dots very closely together.

So chill out because there are people out there with good arguments about the non-existence of a historical Jesus and, given the data available, their hypothesis could be just as valid as the people who believe in a historical Jesus.

This has been discussed several times here and it's getting boring. The annoying part is your eager to write off those who bring the argument against the existence of a historical Jesus every time the subject comes up.

I think you are the one who needs to deal with the fact that some people don't buy into generalities as proof to the existence of a historical Jesus. You are the one, to a great extent, trying to dismiss them, which is totally BS.

I have no idea what you mean. Clarify, please.

Of course it's possible to construct an argument that the historical Jesus never existed. I could do it myself--and if I did, I can assure you it would not be based on the distortions, misrepresentations, execrably bad Greek and general ignorance that characterize the "hypotheses" of Kenneth Humphreys, Earl Doherty and their ilk. It would, however, run up against a number of substantive objections, not the least of which is the difficulty of constructing a deliberately artificial cult right under the noses of the alleged participants, who know damn well what they saw and did. Maybe, as you say, there are good arguments out there. I haven't seen them, and they're not what's dragged into this forum every few months with the kind of panting eagerness that you'd expect from somebody who'd just achieved cold fusion in his kitchen sink.

And you're right, it's getting a bit boring. That's no reason to give ignorance a pass, though. The arguments do not improve with age, or become less ridiculous with repetition.

the pentagram has been used in Christianity and other religions, always meaning something different. So, who the hell knows what religion you follow? Therefore, I will make an assumption on what your are so eager to defend. But I just thought that your words (your fallacious dismissal of anybody questioning the existence of a historical Jesus) in this forum speak louder than your little avatar. So you cannot blame me for making that assumption.

Christian historians resort to the "distortions, misrepresentations, execrably bad Greek and general ignorance" to characterize what they claim to be factual while the Earl Doherty's of the world come up with hypotheses that are just hypotheses. It is fair to say these hypotheses are possibilities. It is a different conclusion on the same data. But so far the refutation I have seen are quick dismissals and generalities since these are "dangerous" hypotheses by evil atheists and other religious people trying to attack Christianity! Oh, the drama!

So far the people who come here to refute these hypotheses cry foul play while they have nothing concrete to offer except for the same distortions, misrepresentations, generalities and wishful thinking. It is truly boring repetitive garbage when one side will not accept differing conclusions on the same data presented, therefore, resorting to bullshit dismissals.



You can also tell that to all your Christian historians. :eyes:

on edit: fixing excerpt

Here, have one of these: :tinfoilhat:

Odd that you can't seem to distinguish between defense of the existence of an historical Jesus and defense of Christianity, something I've not done here. Odd that you can't seem to distinguish, either, between legitimate questioning of the existence of an historical Jesus and the rantings of woo-woos like Humphreys.

And you're right, I'll dismiss the woo-woos out of hand every time. You might ask yourself why the Humphreys and the Dohertys are invariably absent from the legitimate journals of the discipline--why, indeed, they're invariably self-published. Even Price, who actually has some credentials, is mostly printed in his own rag. Now, you might want to call that the fallacy of appeal to authority, but I wonder--if you have a bellyache, do you "appeal to the authority" of your doctor, or do you ask your mail carrier whether he thinks you need an apendectomy? And if he does, do you hand him a paring knife?

You say that the Dohertys and the Humphreys present "hypotheses" from the same data legitimate scholars use. Funny, I've never seen "hypotheses" presented as "Illuminating!" or "Enlightenment!" or such; a naive reader could be forgiven for thinking these guys are claiming to retail Da Reely Troo Troof. The genuine historians on the subject tend to be a lot less excitable than that--Crossan will give you three hundred pages of methodolgy before he gets down to the subject at hand, and he won't try to sell you a coffee cup or a video when he gets to his conclusion. He won't try to tell you art history is theology, either. Nor, unlike Doherty, will he retail Greek syntax hitherto unknown to linguists to make a point clearly contradicted by the texts. (And let's throw Tabor and Spong and Horsely and any number of other legitimate scholars into the same category while we're at it. None of them resorts to the sort of distortions your guys habitually present.)

You've got it exactly backwards, Wiggie. It's up to proponents of the woo-woos to show that they're worthy of serious consideration and that they're working off the same data and presumptions as the real scholars. So far, you haven't made even a poor showing for them.

I don't need Humphreys and Doherty to see that the arguments for a historical Jesus are based on generalities and wishful thinking. It's up to you to prove that it is not. There is more concrete evidence to argue for the existence of sasquatches then there is for a historical Jesus. Sorry! :-)

I don't need to prove that "the arguments for a historical Jesus" aren't "based on generalities and wishful thinking," given that scholars in the field have already done so. It would be impossible to repeat several hundred thousand pages of text here. Sorry.

You could, of course, go to the library and make that determination for yourself. Or you could go to the ASPCA and try to adopt a sasquatch.

And the bullshit you have posted here so far in this forum are all based on generalities and wishful thinking. I always hope to be convinced, given your passion and the passion of others who to try to dismiss whoever questions the existence of a historical Jesus, but it's the same old boring desperate shite.

I'm not convinced by either side in the debate. You are convinced these scholars have proof for the existence of a historical Jesus and then you say I'm naive. Good luck!

in continuing this discussion. On the possibility you might have something concrete to say, though, what do you find inadequate about John Dominic Crossan's studies on the subject?

I admit never reading his books but a read a couple of pieces by him while back (one I think was an excerpt of one of his books) where I noticed he used documents written in the 2nd century and Barnabas (a possible forgery) in his argument for a historical Jesus. I'd love to see more about his work but judging by what I have seen I am afraid I am going to be disappointed. But if you would like to make a recommendation to what book by him I should read, I am all ears.

are The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and The Birth of Christianity. They're both very detailed, closely argued books, but THJ is slightly less heavy on the methodology. On the other hand, Birth is probably the best all-in-one study of the relevant documents, with a pair of appendices that are invaluable just by themselves.

not the least of which is the difficulty of constructing a deliberately artificial cult right under the noses of the alleged participants, who know damn well what they saw and did.

Sorry but this is a lot easier to achieve than you seem to think.

Humans are bad observers and make bad conclusions all the time.

One clear example would be the use of illusion - how many people have been taken in by the spoon benders of the world? Just because they claim to be using the power of their mind doesn't mean they aren't actually just bending friggin' spoons.

There's a lot more to constructing biographies of several dozen fictional people and claiming they were real--right under the noses of people who you claim interacted with them--than to Uri Geller's spoon act.

If you think it's that easy, here's a challenge for you: invent a fictional Democratic presidential candidate with a complete life and political history, start a group for him/her here, and see how far you get.

Since the 'histories' were written some time after the fact by people we cannot even be sure were actual witnesses to the 'events'.

Not to mention you're talking as if they lived in the kind of information age we do where we assume they'd:

1) Be able to READ the works in an age of mass illiteracy
2) Actually come into CONTACT with them: there wasn't exactly a great abundance of copies floating around in these people's lifetimes - the printing press not having yet been invented.

That's why your analogy fails: it is a significantly harder task in an age where information can be globally propagated at the speed of light to make up shit unchallenged. Of course, that hasn't stopped people from thinking fictional creations have been real - a lot of satirists rely on people's general ignorance and lack of fact checking and have used this to great effect in their comedy.

You really are being incredibly naive about human nature here - it is in fact hella easy to do what you think is difficult, you just need to stop making unreasonable assumptions about people being reasonable.

Then again, maybe you didn't.

The events and sayings that comprise the canonical Gospels all had earlier sources--the Q Document, the first version of Thomas, the individual sources peculiar to each of the four books that made it into the NT. Obviously these elements were in circulation well before Mark put stylus to papyrus, and their dissemination did not require a large literate population. (Or are you arguing that there was a sudden jump in literacy immediately after the production of the Gospels, given that they became widespread within a remarkably short period of time?) All that was required was that a relatively large number of folk come in contact with one who could read, and who had access to the material.

You really are being incredibly naive about human nature here - it is in fact hella easy to do what you think is difficult, you just need to stop making unreasonable assumptions about people being reasonable.

But you just said it was terribly difficult. Do make up your mind.

Obviously these elements were in circulation well before Mark put stylus to papyrus, and their dissemination did not require a large literate population.

They also, despite your apparent assumption otherwise, don't need to be any more true.

Or are you arguing that there was a sudden jump in literacy immediately after the production of the Gospels, given that they became widespread within a remarkably short period of time?

Hardly, but high replication doesn't indicate truth - a fallacy I once thought was reasonable.

But you just said it was terribly difficult. Do make up your mind.

Strawman - I said it would be difficult for anyone involved to object or even know if they were having their stories misrepresented. It's not like they could go looking on Wikipedia and kick up a stink about their article having factual errors.

Not to mention the little matter that fictional creations don't complain about their biographies! How the hell exactly would the people being exposed to these stories go about determining if the people contained in them really existed and did what they are purported to do? They can't - they just wouldn't have had anyway to check and they probably wouldn't have been that bothered to do so either.

As such it becomes very easy to persuade people of the historical truth of non-events even if they are only set a few years ago. You are making unreasonable assumptions about the general awareness of the population of these issues.

--or impossibility--of fictional characters objecting to their biographies. Let's use a concrete example here:

Peter, let's say, is standing on the steps of the Temple, telling a crowd gathered around him about Jesus' entry into Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion. He tells them about the donkey and the palms, and then he gets to the part about the next day, when Jesus staged one hell of an act of civil disobedience, overturning the vendors' tables and blocking access to the Temple precinct for most of the day.

Now, assuming that Peter is making this all up, what is the likelihood that there would not be someone in the crowd to pipe up and yell, "Liar! I've sold doves in the Temple every Passover for the last forty years, and no such damn thing ever happened! Took over the Temple, my ass!" Or similar, of course.

The problem for your viewpoint--or one of the problems--is that the last part of Jesus' life was extremely public, no small part of it spent in Jerusalem; and that the movement remained centered in Jerusalem and spread from there after his death. There were too many witnesses to what did happen (or didn't)for the story to have been made up out of whole cloth.

So here's a second challenge for you, since you admit the first is too difficult. Find an example, within the last couple thousand years, of a major political, religious or philosophical movement whose founder was a deliberately created fiction; whose principal followers were also invented; who, along with his followers, was claimed to have interacted with known historical figures in known historical settings; and whose movement remained viable for several hundred to a couple thousand years. In other words, prove that the kind of thing you claim happened, did happen, in at leasat one documented instance.

Now, assuming that Peter is making this all up, what is the likelihood that there would not be someone in the crowd to pipe up and yell, "Liar! I've sold doves in the Temple every Passover for the last forty years, and no such damn thing ever happened! Took over the Temple, my ass!" Or similar, of course.

Very good actually.

You think anyone being a skeptic like him would have been any better received than I? People don't fucking like skeptics - they ruin a good story.

Find an example, within the last couple thousand years, of a major political, religious or philosophical movement whose founder was a deliberately created fiction; whose principal followers were also invented; who, along with his followers, was claimed to have interacted with known historical figures in known historical settings; and whose movement remained viable for several hundred to a couple thousand years.

Christianity.

That wouldn't be a "skeptic"--that would be someone following the approved position of the authorities, and if he were telling the truth, he would have plenty of people in the crowd to back him up. You do realize that the charge against Jesus was treason, that the government had an interest in suppressing his followers, and that the chap in the audience would be no more than acting in his own interest if he could refute Pete? That wouldn't be "spoiling the story," that would be saving his neck.

Christianity

Oooohh, I bet that made you feel so clever.

My bad for assuming you would interpret the question in good faith. Find some such configuration other than (you allege) Christianity that fits the criteria. Or are you simply dodging again because you know you can't meet the challenge?

You have offered no proof, by the way, that Christianity does fit the criteria, though you've put forth plenty of assumptions and assertions abut your interpretation of human nature. It's increasingly obvious that you're aruging from--let's be polite--a lack of information about the period and the texts. You're going to need to show better reason than that why you should be taken seriously.

there's a much larger mega-industry surrounding the notion that he did, and it has made certain religious leaders quite wealthy off the backs of naive Christians.

There is a whole etiquette by some non-Christian historians to be very careful not to upset Christians by not writing or saying what they truly think on the subject. Very much like trying not being a dick by telling children that Santa Claus does not exist.

Those historians who do say something are labeled with having some sort of "self interest" by those using their circumstantial ad hominem attacks to refute their arguments.

has a reliable following of gullible enthusiasts. The only difference between Jerry Falwell, say, and Kenneth Humphreys, is that the former has a much larger flock of faithful to fleece.

If there is such a possiblity, it is so small as to be negligible.

Jesus is better attested than most of his contemporaries (ask a real scholar of ancient history), and the four gospels, representing four different oral traditions, give a remarkably consistent picture of a personality, differing in details in ways that can be accounted for by a long period of oral transmission.

First of all, you originally indicated that you would acknowledge the possibility of Jesus not existing if I acknowledged the possibility that Socrates did not exist. I did that because the evidence for Socrates existence is not conclusive, yet your answer now is:

“No.”

You then go on to say:

“If there is such a possiblity, it is so small as to be negligible.”

It appears to be your position that the existence of Jesus is a near certainty. Yet, the evidence you offer is quite weak:

“Jesus is better attested than most of his contemporaries (ask a real scholar of ancient history), and the four gospels, representing four different oral traditions, give a remarkably consistent picture of a personality, differing in details in ways that can be accounted for by a long period of oral transmission.”

Hardly irrefutable historical evidence.

For example as has been mentioned, some historians don't even believe that most of the authors of the Gospels were even attempting to write history. There is absolutely nothing to say that the Bible is not simply a recitation of ancient folklore, taken in part from other stories handed down from one generation to the next, with other parts being fabricated.

And most historians don't consider it a sure bet that Socrates even existed. The case for his existence is probably stronger than for that of Jesus, as Richard Carrier pointed out in the link I provided.

But let me up the ante one notch.

Let's assume for a moment that Jesus really did exist (as I have acknowledged he could have.)

Will you acknowledge the possibility, however slight, that he may not have been the son of a god?

Other than a possible propensity for recreational arguing?

Is your atheism so weak that it's threatened by the existence of a believer who is very left of center (a democratic socialist, if the truth be known), holds a graduate degree in an academic subject from an Ivy League school, is conversant with science, thinks GLBT people are just fine, and is utterly opposed to theocracy?

I was having lunch with another member of my church a couple of days ago, and we agreed that while we couldn't explain why, being Christian "worked" for us, and that it was an experiential thing, not the result of a series of logical deductions.

My experiences in various churches over five decades have been some of the most beautiful, meaningful, and constructive of my life.

My personal belief is that God is too big for humans to understand, and that we are all like the blind men in the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Jesus was God's way of making the divine intelligible to humanity. How this happened, I don't know. I leave it to the theologians.

If you ever become religious (and I've seen it happen to atheists, not because of being logically pinned to the floor in arguments by theists, but through experiences), you'll see what I mean.

:rofl:

I'll answer her post this evening when I get back.

I found it funny that "sincere" post had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. It was a feint, pure and simple.

Besides, I could have been meaner. I just decided to laugh instead.

in this forum?

If we give sincere answers, we're ridiculed. If we don't accept strawman arguments and try to explain things in our own terms, we're "feinting." If we object to being dogpiled by people who revel in snarkiness, "we have a persecution complex."

I'm going to leave you all to enjoy being the "Heathers" of this forum.

Don't worry. I'm sure someone else will come along whom you can feel superior to.

Yup, that'll teach us for asking questions we'd like more than vapid answers to.

I dunno, I kind of think the "superior" label would be more apt for someone who feels their martyrs died for truth, while everyone else's were simply wrong (or didn't REALLY die for their beliefs).

:shrug:

So far, you've been dishonest ("I'll acknowledge if you will", which you backed out of) and dodged their questions.

Just because you WANT Jesus to have existed doesn't make it so. Your evidence is lacking (but at least you didn't try to use the forgery attributed to Josephus, I'll give you that).

Then there's your "would they die for a lie" argument, which supports every other religion as well as yours but STILL isn't proof.

For example: David Koresh. People died believing his spiel; by your argument, he must have been what he claimed to be.

Why is it so hard to admit that Jesus might not have existed? I mean, if your god exists, he's not going to be pissed off by intellectual honesty, is he?

"Would you aknowledge that Jesus may not be a son of God."

Instead of answering it (not that hard a question) you, rather rudely responded with a non-answer "i.e. a feint". Sorry, but I found this attack:

"May I ask you why you care so much? Other than a possible propensity for recreational arguing. Is your atheism so weak that it's threatened by the existence of a believer "

ruder than my :rofl:.

by encouraging believers to truly examine the foundations of a historical Jesus.

Remember that.

Christian: Jesus shits gold, and farts silver

Atheist: You attribute these things to Jesus, but did he really exist.

Christian: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. CAN YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU JESUS MAY HAVE EXISTED!!!

Atheist: of course its possible...I'm not saying it isn't. But can you really say that he did truly exist, seeing as how your expecting me to admit other possibilities.

Christian: I BELIEVE THAT GAYS ARE OKAY!!!!!

Atheist: Uh...well...hmmm...but is it possible Jesud didn't exi...

Christian: IS YOUR ATHEISM SO WEAK...

Atheist: :rofl:

My personal belief is that God is too big for humans to understand,

And yet you engage in that exercise.

I do wonder if people actually think about the things they believe carefully at all.

If you ever become religious ..., you'll see what I mean.

And the appeal to experience.

Once you realise that personal experience is liable to be faulty you'll get the point about why feeling religious, or having grand god concepts that you reason as being fundamentally beyond understanding whilst asserting that you understand plenty you'll get the point.

I just wrote an over 500 word response to this post of yours, but just couldn't bring myself to post it here. I know people are using religion to help get through life.

The problem is that theism really is counterproductive. Probably not much in your case, but then liberal Christians like you help give credibility to religious fundamentalists (who are doing most of the damage) by attempting to legitimize something that is not legitimate. Otherwise I'd be glad to just leave it alone like I used to.

"An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true."

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoauthority.html

Her masters thesis was on Christianity and Buddhism.

Her response: *after berating me that I never answer my emails and that my email is bereft of any personal information about how I'm doing*. "No historical scholar would say that Jesus definitely existed, although most would say that its likely. There are definitely controversies"

So yeah. I linked her to this page, but she doesn't want to join DU. Lol..she calls it a "waste of time" :rofl:. And she says I'm mean! Me! Mean! BwHAHAHAHA.

don't write like a scientist! (were you the one accused of not writing like a scientist?)

Anyway, your friend is right and it pisses me off when people try to dismiss whoever makes an argument that there is a chance that perhaps a historical Jesus never existed. There are a few people who consistently try to dismiss others as "not having enough knowledge" when the subject comes to the table, as if they held all the knowledge, and it is annoying.

Appeal to authority and circumstantial ad hominem are used in order to come up with BS refutations and dismiss the other person's arguments.

He is even mentioned in a comedy of the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

"Details about Socrates are derived from three contemporary sources: the dialogues of Plato, the plays of Aristophanes, and the dialogues of Xenophon."