Brisbane Atheists Message Board Brisbane Atheists Meetup Group (BAMG) Discussion Forum › Jesus is an entirely fictional character

Jesus is an entirely fictional character

Kathy K
user 11652186
Sunshine Coast, AU
Post #: 11
or follow 'decodedseries@wordpress.com' the blogs are just heating up about the fraud in the bible - back reading some blogs shows evidence from within the bible itself.
Doug F.
dougfreckelton
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 19
“There was no Jesus, there is no God: A scholarly examination of the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence & arguments for monotheism” by Raphael Christopher Lataster (2013, ISBN: 1492234419) does a good job on this topic. For example he shows that most historical research methods have been inadequate (ignoring contrary evidence, drawing conclusions from very weak evidence and relying on the Bible rather than contemporary sources (such as the writings of Philo)) so statements like “Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed” ( Wikipedia Historicity of Jesus ) or “Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed” (Wikipedia Historical Jesus ) are not convincing especially as most Biblical scholars are Christians who are unlikely to want to dismantle their belief system.
Scott B.
user 63569022
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 6
^The fact that "most Biblical scholars are Christians" doesn't go too far. Sure, that's true, but it's also true that most non-Christian scholars of Christian Origins still think there was a historical Jesus: Bart Ehrman, Zeba Crook, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, James Tabor, Maurice Casey, Amy-Jill Levine, Elaine Pagels, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reza Aslan are all uber-qualified non-Christians whom I have read who have all published works on the historical Jesus. And then there are a host of scholars who still consider themselves "Christians" but openly acknowledge that they don't believe Jesus actually performed miracles or rose from the dead - scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, L. Michael White, Dale Allison, Albert Schweitzer, Mark Goodacre, Dale Martin... I could go on...

The idea that scholars such as these "ignore" evidence and don't take the writings of Philo into consideration is just nonsense. From what I've read, Philo is a major source of theirs for establishing social, religious and political contexts of the time.

I would question the integrity of a scholar who approaches the question of Jesus' historical existence from the angle of "wanting to dismantle the belief system". A more honest approach I think would be for them to simply try and figure out what happened - how did the religion begin? - from a historical figure or otherwise? If the results of that search end up dismantling the belief system of fundamentalists (which I think it does), then great! But that shouldn't be the goal of a historian.

Don't get me wrong, although I do think there was a historical Jesus, I'm not as confident as these scholars. But I just get tired of hearing this nonsense that those scholars who end up concluding that there probably was a historical crucified cult-leader at the origin of what became Christianity are "ignoring" evidence and whatnot.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy