Thread: so where do the scholars sit, really?

I think the general idea was that Jesus did was a person who existed, most likely a teacher and/or doomsayer, but there's no historical evidence for any of the miracles, etc.

There were said to be many prophets around at that time, I believe; Jesus may have just had a particularly large following, or perhaps by coincidence it was his records which survived and were expanded upon.

He spent most of his time talking about the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven being very near (as does the Bible), which clearly didn't come true. With that in mind I think it's interesting such a strong religion built up around him.

Its because most people have an opinion already. One doesn't believe and so he looked for evidence that disproves it. And one does believe so he looked for evidence that did prove it. Obviously either one or both were bias in their research.

On the contrary, professional historians know how to be objective, as a crucial part of their entire profession.

Actually Xei (and I may be wrong, I don't read the bible), I think that Jesus talked about entering into the kingdom of heaven. This is a metaphor for nonjudgement, non-duality, whatever you want to call it. I think that people interpreted this literally rather than as a metaphor and thus missed the point completely.

"Unless ye become as a little child, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven."
Funny enough when I looked this quote up, there were 2-3 translations that threw in the line, "unless you convert". God Damned factionalism.

I've thought about the idea that Jesus was just made up(especially when I was younger and was looking for any reason to get out of going to church), but it seems much less likely than that he was just a wise man. Craftsman of all sorts seem to have this strange mystic wisdom and touch. I don't think there's anything supernatural about it, but I would consider this to be a very spiritual thing, this deep sense of care. It can be spiritual in the act itself, but I think that it becomes very deep when a person is able to extend this kind of caring to the world around them. I can't do this myself, but I've had a few short glimpses.

I've heard the argument that Jesus never existed, not just from atheists but from new-agers as well. But that would be freaky! For the authors to create a character whose words and wisdom actually exceeded their capacity to understand? I mean, who else in the bible actually understands that heaven isn't a place you go to? Not that it's impossible to create an imaginary character wiser than you, but it just seems a little unlikely in this scenario. And given the dead sea scrolls, it seems more likely that Jesus was a real person of flesh and blood who did walk around and preach.

well, this thread is more about whether or not there is a consensus among scholars over the existence of Jesus...but I appreciate all your input nonetheless.

I actually started on a reply to this yesterday, but accidentally closed the browser and I'm still too pissed off about it to type it up again.

as far as this particular author being biased, he claims that he was an atheist while in collage (or at least, not religious at all), until a group of christians there challenged him to prove that Jesus did not exist. he was surprised when he found overwhelming evidence (supposedly), converted, and has written many books on the subject since.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its because most people have an opinion already. One doesn't believe and so he looked for evidence that disproves it. And one does believe so he looked for evidence that did prove it. Obviously either one or both were bias in their research.

You haven't illustrated bias in your example. You've shown the right way to go about searching for truth (start from evidence, work towards the answer), and the wrong way to go about it (start from an answer, work backwards looking for evidence to support it).

I saw Dan Barker speak at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne. Before spending the last 25 years speaking about his atheism, he spent 19 years as a creationist evangelical preacher. He can still speak in tongues, and if he claims that if he concentrates he can still 'feel' the presence of Jesus/God within him to the point where it brings tears to his eyes. But he's fully aware that this is just emotional and chemical reactions going on inside his brain, and not the product of an outside force or deity.

I would have loved to have bought Godless there and had him sign it, but there were none on sale due to a shipping error still waiting on Amazon to deliver mine, can't wait to read it and leave it somewhere for my girlfriends religious parents to find.

Originally Posted by nerve

he then proceeds to make an argument for the stories being records of actual events, not fables or myths...

Considering most of the NT was written by people that came 40-70 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified, I'd say he's got a very large burden of proof at his feet, which he's likely ignoring and substituting for faith.