Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
That would be a pretty weird thing to write in your letters if it wasn’t true.
(Andrew): He also wrote in his letters that the details of the eucharist had been divinely revealed to him. That’s pretty weird, but I doubt that it’s true.
Making stuff up that no one can disprove is different then saying you met people that other people knew and could be confirmed.
Scroll down on the following link, and you’ll find a good video of Professor Bart Ehrman explaining that no New Testament scholar doubts the historical existence of Jesus (as Ehrman says, Hector Avalos is an old Testament scholar, and Bob Price does not have a teaching position). Ehrman will soon be publishing an E-Book against the mythicist position:
To start with here I will say that I don’t like the attitude of Dr. Bart Ehrman, I am not a mythicist, but nevertheless Ehrman does not come across as very convincing and he is a liar as evidenced in the radio interview with Mr. Finley (who incidentally is a bumbling, confusing person in his own right). Here’s a bit of that conversation referencing the points made above by John76, they are discussing whether other scholars of NT history hold that Jesus did not actually exist.
Finley: “What do you think about Dr. Bob Price’s work?”
Ehrman: “Don’t know him!”
Finley: “You don’t know Dr. Robert M. Price?”
Ehrman: “He’s the guy who denies that Jesus existed?”
Finley: “I think he’s pretty much leaning towards that, yes.”
Finley: “You can look him up. He has too many to mention right now, and ummm, Deconstructing Jesus, have you hear of that one?”
Ehrman: “Yea. He’s actually communicated with me. And he’s told me some of his doubts and I’ve been puzzled by it because I don’t really understand . . I don’t see any evidence that he’s deduced . .”
Finley: “I would suggest that you really should read some of his stuff, but you’re so busy . . . (this goes on for a bit, then thinks of another book) . . . ‘Shrinking Son of Man’”
Ehrman: “Yeah! Oh yeah, that guy!”
This exchange is ludicrous and pathetic. The very thought that Ehrman hasn’t heard of Price is just plainly stupid, not sure what game he’s playing? But if this is the level of his condescending attitude, my conclusion is that Ehrman is just an asshole! I do not for a second take anything he says seriously, and if this is the kind of work he refers to as scholarship, then the whole academic community (at least the study of new testament history) is just a sham and a charade under which some people can make some money. It all stinks very strongly (and appropriately, I might add)!
John76 - many atheists here are invested in there not being an historical Jesus. It makes them uncomfortable to think there was an actual man behind the accounts. You are correct - the people who are actually scholars in the field accept the idea of the historical Jesus, even if many don’t accept him as the Son of God. But that counts for very little with some people around here, some of whom are full-blown historical revisionists.
This is a favorite topic of ours that we rehash about once a year or so, and we usually end up at loggerheads, but we’ve got some new meat so I’ll be happy to enjoin you to battle. Since you bring up historical revisionism, perhaps you can give us your latest, non-biblical account of the historicity of Jesus which hasn’t already been thoroughly discussed?
I’ll be the guy who says Jesus didn’t exist as described in the Bible because there are no extant primary sources of his existence. Without this evidence the default position is Jesus didn’t exist. Nor am I uncomfortable with being proven wrong with valid evidence, and to the contrary, it is the Christians who are uncomfortable with the objection to Jesus’ existence since the religion’s foundation rests upon the crucifixion/resurrection story, you have the burden of proof.
That would be a pretty weird thing to write in your letters if it wasn’t true.
(Andrew): He also wrote in his letters that the details of the eucharist had been divinely revealed to him. That’s pretty weird, but I doubt that it’s true.
Making stuff up that no one can disprove is different then saying you met people that other people knew and could be confirmed.
(Andrew): The point is that he made stuff up, freely and admittedly. That, and the fact that we have nothing from anyone confirming his meeting with the Jerusalem church, while not disproving his claim, should raise suspicions.
John76 - many atheists here are invested in there not being an historical Jesus.
(Andrew): Who? Which atheist (or atheists) on this forum have anything invested in there not having been an historical Jesus?
Ecurb Noselrub - 03 September 2011 06:26 PM
...the people who are actually scholars in the field accept the idea of the historical Jesus…
(Andrew): Not all of them. Some scholars in the field—people who have studied the New Testament and know more than you or I about it—are open to (and pursue) the idea that Jesus was not historical.
Ecurb Noselrub - 03 September 2011 06:26 PM
But that counts for very little with some people around here, some of whom are full-blown historical revisionists.
(Andrew): You’re sounding more like Dennis Campbell every day.
The idea of a historical Jesus is semi-consistent with the evidence. This is of course the ONLY version of history that the Churches will accept. Scholars who want to be accredited as legitimate Biblical experts seem to all toe this version like they were pressured into it by the Church that controls most of the funding.
The idea of a composite character Jesus is far more obviously in keeping with the evidence. At minimum, we must accept that the deities mythologies of the planting (re-born in Virgin Mother Earth) and calendar (12 disciples) were added to the persona.
In seeing the rather large number of separate belief systems rolled into Christianity, it is hard to think that they all had the same common source rather than a variety of separated distinct sources with different teachings.
We atheists should at least be open to the possibility of a non-real-historical-Jesus.
The idea of a historical Jesus is semi-consistent with the evidence. This is of course the ONLY version of history that the Churches will accept. Scholars who want to be accredited as legitimate Biblical experts seem to all toe this version like they were pressured into it by the Church that controls most of the funding.
(Andrew): That’s a lot of it. I don’t think there are any seminaries that even mention the possibility that Jesus was not historical, far less offer a class in any alternatives, so it’s not surprising that their product is unable and/or unwilling to think outside that box. The notion that only those theologians who went to seminary can be “legitimate Bible experts”...or “scholars” is silly, anyway. Arrogant elitism, in my view.
Scroll down on the following link, and you’ll find a good video of Professor Bart Ehrman explaining that no New Testament scholar doubts the historical existence of Jesus (as Ehrman says, Hector Avalos is an old Testament scholar, and Bob Price does not have a teaching position). Ehrman will soon be publishing an E-Book against the mythicist position:
To start with here I will say that I don’t like the attitude of Dr. Bart Ehrman, I am not a mythicist, but nevertheless Ehrman does not come across as very convincing and he is a liar as evidenced in the radio interview with Mr. Finley (who incidentally is a bumbling, confusing person in his own right). Here’s a bit of that conversation referencing the points made above by John76, they are discussing whether other scholars of NT history hold that Jesus did not actually exist.
Finley: “What do you think about Dr. Bob Price’s work?”
Ehrman: “Don’t know him!”
Finley: “You don’t know Dr. Robert M. Price?”
Ehrman: “He’s the guy who denies that Jesus existed?”
Finley: “I think he’s pretty much leaning towards that, yes.”
Finley: “You can look him up. He has too many to mention right now, and ummm, Deconstructing Jesus, have you hear of that one?”
Ehrman: “Yea. He’s actually communicated with me. And he’s told me some of his doubts and I’ve been puzzled by it because I don’t really understand . . I don’t see any evidence that he’s deduced . .”
Finley: “I would suggest that you really should read some of his stuff, but you’re so busy . . . (this goes on for a bit, then thinks of another book) . . . ‘Shrinking Son of Man’”
Ehrman: “Yeah! Oh yeah, that guy!”
This exchange is ludicrous and pathetic. The very thought that Ehrman hasn’t heard of Price is just plainly stupid, not sure what game he’s playing? But if this is the level of his condescending attitude, my conclusion is that Ehrman is just an asshole! I do not for a second take anything he says seriously, and if this is the kind of work he refers to as scholarship, then the whole academic community (at least the study of new testament history) is just a sham and a charade under which some people can make some money. It all stinks very strongly (and appropriately, I might add)!
Can Zen,
I am a fan of Ehrman, I would love to hear this interveiw.
I am a fan of Ehrman, I would love to hear this interveiw.
Jeff
The only reason Bart Ehrman claimed to have never heard of Bob Price is that he was claiming that there were no scholars doubting the reality of a historical Jesus.
When pushed, It turned out that he had heard of him, and even talked to him at least once. The ‘pants down gotcha’ made Bart look a lot like Bart Simpson.
The idea of a historical Jesus is semi-consistent with the evidence. This is of course the ONLY version of history that the Churches will accept. Scholars who want to be accredited as legitimate Biblical experts seem to all toe this version like they were pressured into it by the Church that controls most of the funding.
The idea of a composite character Jesus is far more obviously in keeping with the evidence. At minimum, we must accept that the deities mythologies of the planting (re-born in Virgin Mother Earth) and calendar (12 disciples) were added to the persona.
In seeing the rather large number of separate belief systems rolled into Christianity, it is hard to think that they all had the same common source rather than a variety of separated distinct sources with different teachings.
We atheists should at least be open to the possibility of a non-real-historical-Jesus.
12 months, 12 tribes, 12 zodiac signs, 12 disciples coincidence? Virgin births, death and rebirth , winter solstice coincidence? Across all myths and regions the real world was tied to them and them to the real world. There is nothing unusual or special about that.
John76 - many atheists here are invested in there not being an historical Jesus. It makes them uncomfortable to think there was an actual man behind the accounts. You are correct - the people who are actually scholars in the field accept the idea of the historical Jesus, even if many don’t accept him as the Son of God. But that counts for very little with some people around here, some of whom are full-blown historical revisionists.
This is a favorite topic of ours that we rehash about once a year or so, and we usually end up at loggerheads, but we’ve got some new meat so I’ll be happy to enjoin you to battle. Since you bring up historical revisionism, perhaps you can give us your latest, non-biblical account of the historicity of Jesus which hasn’t already been thoroughly discussed?
I’ll be the guy who says Jesus didn’t exist as described in the Bible because there are no extant primary sources of his existence. Without this evidence the default position is Jesus didn’t exist. Nor am I uncomfortable with being proven wrong with valid evidence, and to the contrary, it is the Christians who are uncomfortable with the objection to Jesus’ existence since the religion’s foundation rests upon the crucifixion/resurrection story, you have the burden of proof.
I’ll chime in here and agree with Skippy. I have nothing vested in there being a historical Jesus or not. However, the evidence that I’ve seen all comes from the Bible. Without evidence from an outside source of his actual existence I’m going to assume there was no real person named Jesus.
Bruce, it seems to me that Christians are the ones with skin in the game on there being a real guy named Jesus. If there weren’t, it kinda makes the whole of Christianity kind of pointless.
Let’s for a minute have a little though experiment and assume there was a real Jesus. That does absolutely nothing to my position as an atheist. He’s just some guy who performed magic tricks, claimed to be God, and got killed for it by the Romans. Pretty sure they tortured heretics all the time, so it’s not really anything special. As to the argument that why would he die for something he knew to be false, I’ll bring up the story of Joseph Smith, who maintained his story despite being persecuted actively and eventually murdered.
I’ll be the guy who says Jesus didn’t exist as described in the Bible because there are no extant primary sources of his existence. Without this evidence the default position is Jesus didn’t exist. Nor am I uncomfortable with being proven wrong with valid evidence, and to the contrary, it is the Christians who are uncomfortable with the objection to Jesus’ existence since the religion’s foundation rests upon the crucifixion/resurrection story, you have the burden of proof.
The letters of the apostle Paul are an extant primary source of Jesus’ historical existence, and so is the Gospel of John. Even if you hold that Paul never saw Jesus (I think he did), he was alive at the same time and would have known what was going on around Jerusalem, just like you and I know that Obama is President of the US without having physically met him (I assume you haven’t). John knew him, and wrote about some of his recollections in the gospel called by his name. The internal evidence of that gospel is that it was written by an eye-witness.
When the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John were written, they were not part of the Bible, by the way.
When the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John were written, they were not part of the Bible, by the way.
I guess your point does make some sense Bruce in that the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John WERE the extant proofs that the life of Jesus is historically true, but these “external” sources of verification have now been incorporated into the bible.
That’s a sweet thought, however, do the commentaries on Odysseus that are reported and written after the original work by Homer serve as proof to the actual existence of the Ithican hero? Words and narratives are written at a certain time and these constructions grow out of persistent stories already within those communities. Later commentaries by persons slightly removed from the source of the myths appear to corroborate them, but in fact they add nothing at all to the veracity of the original insofar as actual existence is concerned.
There’s a difference between a written court document or a political edict, and the glossy eyed narrative of a believer . . . we must rely on the former as true verification, all the rest is merely conjecture. With Jesus, there is not a shred of historical documentation.
You’re sounding more like Dennis Campbell every day.
OK, Andrew, I’ve just decided I like you (I sorta tend to like people who agree with me).
