Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Uhhhh, he didn't blindly guess.

Lee Strobel is an investigative reporter. He interviewed a number of people, from medical experts (who told him that Jesus was indeed crucified, listing that regardless of their personal belief in Jesus, his death was medically consistent), to psychologists (who told him that there's no such thing as mass hallucination), and so on. The more people he asked, the more the report showed something he didn't like.

https://www.divinerevelations.info/pdf/the_case_for_christ.pdf

Some were theists, some were atheists who nonetheless conceded that certain points weren't so. In context, he was trying to deconvert his wife, who he felt was becoming distant from him, so he went on a quest to interview people and disprove Christianity. He lines all these points up together, though, and was forced into the opposite conclusion. Oh yeah, and while all this was going on, he was investigating a man accused of murder. The point of the latter is that like Jesus, the man accused was actually guiltless. This is largely why I say that he converted backwards. The idea of Christianity was the first thing he managed to prove, then later he tackled figuring out if there was a Creator or not.

Ive always found it difficult to understand the bases of "rules of evidence" used by these cult members. Its always good for a laugh though.

But is this idea taken seriously by any professors of ancient history, Biblical studies, or New Testament studies? To say the least, no. In fact, not a single academic scholar today with a Ph.D. in a relevant field of study claims that Jesus did not exist.

I can indeed suggest this thing you call absurd.

All serious scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus.

Quote:

But is this idea taken seriously by any professors of ancient history, Biblical studies, or New Testament studies? To say the least, no. In fact, not a single academic scholar today with a Ph.D. in a relevant field of study claims that Jesus did not exist.

Every historian, aside from three cranks who have no job and no credentials, accepts the reality that there was a Jesus and that he died on the cross. What about those who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus? They believe Jesus died on the cross. End of story, no resurrection. Or they believe there was a historical man named Jesus, but he was just a crazy prophet not the son of God. Without exception, all of them believe that Jesus existed, from an abundance of secondhand or thirdhand sources, including those of Christianity's enemies. So yes, believing Jesus is not the son of God, that he didn't resurrect from the grave, these are valid positions. Why, then, do you take the invalid one that he never existed or that he didn't die on the cross?

Far from absurd, that's even more settled than climate change (supposedly) is.

If we believe that consensus is something to be embraced (supposedly, that 90 something % of scientists agree with global warming is a good thing, even though science by definition is about rejecting consensus and testing results), then this should give you pause.

Nothing absurd there. I notice you say that he lived and that he died the way ppl said you call "even more absurd" but won't even speak of raising from the dead. A bridge too far?

The Romans in fact did crucify people. This is not "even more absurd."

There is a group of about 3 main semi-scholarly people who argue for this “Christ-myth theory” that Jesus never existed. Richard Carrier is the most popular one, and quite frankly, is the only one who is even somewhat listened to by academics. He was mentioned multiple times in the article mentioned above, Carrier has a Ph.D. in Ancient Studies from Columbia University with a specialty in Roman history, though he is currently unemployed having never held an academic position at any university. His claim is that the existence of Jesus is sufficiently improbable and his historicity cannot be considered certain, and therefore we are not justified in claiming he existed.

Basically, unless someone was living at the same time as a historical figure, how can ANYONE say that they KNOW that ANYONE lived?

Bulma is quoting horseshit, most reputable historians remain agnostic over whether Jesus existed or not.

Only the religious ones insist existed.

Bulma just seems to read nothing but extreme fundamentalist bollocks.

I get the impression they've never read a newspaper.

Is it a matter of evidence? I mean is the reason that no one can KNOW that Jesus lived just that there isn’t enough physical evidence?

Basically, unless someone was living at the same time as a historical figure, how can ANYONE say that they KNOW that ANYONE lived?

I don't go around memorizing names of scholars.

Neither do you. This is a baited question. I need to find a scholar who says that, because... no I don't. The fact of the matter is, nobody serious says that he didn't exist. Not the Jews (the Babylonian Talmud goes so far as to say that he is burning in feces), and not the Romans (Tacticus was Roman senator who wrote about Jesus's execution under Pontius Pilate, and showed little to no favor toward Christianity), and not the nearby tribes near Israel (Mara bar Sarapion was a Syrian philosopher and a citizen loyal to Rome, he spoke of the unjust treatment of "three wise men": the murder of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras, and the execution of the King of the Jews).

So, I've got not one but three people who talk about Jesus. Modern scholars? I don't keep up with them. But all of these people wrote historical records of a guy named Jesus, even though they hated his guts or were indifferent. These are some of the sources that historians use, not the word of Christians but hostile sources. All of his enemies nonetheless admit he existed.

Nevermind that if I did tell you a modern scholar, you'd be all like "No, that one's no good." Feel free to reject sources, but do it on your own time. I ain't got the patience for that bullshit anymore.

Also, show me one that doesn't. Oh wait, I've got one from the article.

Quote:

There is a group of about 3 main semi-scholarly people who argue for this “Christ-myth theory” that Jesus never existed. Richard Carrier is the most popular one, and quite frankly, is the only one who is even somewhat listened to by academics. He was mentioned multiple times in the article mentioned above, Carrier has a Ph.D. in Ancient Studies from Columbia University with a specialty in Roman history, though he is currently unemployed having never held an academic position at any university. His claim is that the existence of Jesus is sufficiently improbable and his historicity cannot be considered certain, and therefore we are not justified in claiming he existed.

Read this again. He is a loser basement dweller who cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

Quote:

Basically, unless someone was living at the same time as a historical figure, how can ANYONE say that they KNOW that ANYONE lived?

I took history class, unlike the rest of you jerks. We learned about historiography. That is, the study of how we know our history is real (an object lesson in this class was Herodotus's History of the Peloponnesian War, which was fairly accurate until Herodotus figured out they were gonna lose, then he just quit in the middle of a paragraph). Historians check this stuff and cross-check it.

One of the ways you figure out if a person existed or not is that there is a person-shaped gap in history. For example, if I were to be hit by a Chainfire spell (dude, read Terry Goodkind) and all record of me was erased from memory, you could still find my name in work records and dental information, tax forms, stuff like that. Now, suppose someone really tried hard to erase me but destroying my name from everywhere. There is still a gap. If someone is immune, and knows I existed, and knows where I worked, they can prove my existence by an unaccounted for gap in the way the paychecks line up. Money is lost, but there is no recipient. Or how their wife had a child. Stuff like that.

This is not an issue for scholars. There is no scholar in any college or university who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity, who doubts that Jesus existed. He is abundantly attested in early sources. Early and independent sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed. Paul is an eyewitness to both Jesus’ disciple Peter and the brother of Jesus. Like, I’m sorry. Atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.
And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

No, I never said that.

snood wrote:

Is it a matter of evidence? I mean is the reason that no one can KNOW that Jesus lived just that there isn’t enough physical evidence?

Basically, unless someone was living at the same time as a historical figure, how can ANYONE say that they KNOW that ANYONE lived?

So very evident, Snood. Ya gotta wonder why Bulma is not able to understand that. But Bulma will not acknowledge the lack of logic in their argument.

So, just so I’m clear on this…
You’re saying that we can’t know that anyone from history really lived, because we weren’t there to witness them alive?

Frank Apisa wrote:

snood wrote:

Is it a matter of evidence? I mean is the reason that no one can KNOW that Jesus lived just that there isn’t enough physical evidence?

Basically, unless someone was living at the same time as a historical figure, how can ANYONE say that they KNOW that ANYONE lived?

So very evident, Snood. Ya gotta wonder why Bulma is not able to understand that. But Bulma will not acknowledge the lack of logic in their argument.

So, just so I’m clear on this…
You’re saying that we can’t know that anyone from history really lived, because we weren’t there to witness them alive?

...NO I am not saying that we cannot know that anyone from history really lived because we were not there to witness them alive.