Why are all the scholars changing their mind on

[alwayson]

A lot of mainstream scholars are changing their minds on the existence of Jesus.



Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, and Thomas Thompson, renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen believe that you cannot say whether Jesus existed or not.

Thomas Brodie, director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland, and Robert Price, who has two Ph.D.s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies, and Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, are certain Jesus never existed.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 88 by Zzyzx]

God is not undetectable.

There is also a variety of physical evidence that suggests his existence.

Kindly cite the physical evidence to which you refer (as per Forum Rules, substantiate your claim).

Notice carefully that I did NOT say that your favorite "god" is undetectable (though I may think so). What I actually did in post 88 was ask a question "Have opinions that involve invisible, undetectable supernatural entities been tested against evidence? What evidence?"

If the shoe fits . . . .

I have a personal relationship with God.
I speak to him daily, and he responds.

The use of my physical senses constitutes valid evidence.

Your turn.

Demonstrate that your denial of the existence of God is based on something other than ignorance (lack of experience).

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 88 by Zzyzx]

God is not undetectable.

There is also a variety of physical evidence that suggests his existence.

Kindly cite the physical evidence to which you refer (as per Forum Rules, substantiate your claim).

Notice carefully that I did NOT say that your favorite "god" is undetectable (though I may think so). What I actually did in post 88 was ask a question "Have opinions that involve invisible, undetectable supernatural entities been tested against evidence? What evidence?"

If the shoe fits . . . .

I have a personal relationship with God.
I speak to him daily, and he responds.

You SAY that you have a relationship and conversations with "god" and offer that as evidence in debate? Do you not realize that those who read your claims have no way of knowing if you are delusional or to what degree?

Such personal testimonials may be convincing to some (perhaps to you), but are generally disregarded and disrespected (and often deemed silly) in reasoned discussion or debate.

The use of my physical senses constitutes valid evidence.

Do you also claim a physical relationship with "god?"

Demonstrate that your denial of the existence of God is based on something other than ignorance (lack of experience).

Straw man alert. I decidedly do NOT "deny the existence of god" -- but instead maintain over and over that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY be real and MAY influence human lives or "afterlives" (if such thing exists). However, I do not accept claims or stories about any of the proposed "gods" unless strong and convincing evidence is available for me to consider in making an informed decision.

Promoters / proponents of "gods" seem to be a little short on evidence so they resort to testimonials and unverified claims -- and often deliberately and/or incorrectly misstate the position of others (perhaps in an attempt to "win" a debate?).

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 88 by Zzyzx]

God is not undetectable.

There is also a variety of physical evidence that suggests his existence.

Kindly cite the physical evidence to which you refer (as per Forum Rules, substantiate your claim).

Notice carefully that I did NOT say that your favorite "god" is undetectable (though I may think so). What I actually did in post 88 was ask a question "Have opinions that involve invisible, undetectable supernatural entities been tested against evidence? What evidence?"

If the shoe fits . . . .

I have a personal relationship with God.
I speak to him daily, and he responds.

You SAY that you have a relationship and conversations with "god" and offer that as evidence in debate? Do you not realize that those who read your claims have no way of knowing if you are delusional or to what degree?

Such personal testimonials may be convincing to some (perhaps to you), but are generally disregarded and disrespected (and often deemed silly) in reasoned discussion or debate.

The use of my physical senses constitutes valid evidence.

Do you also claim a physical relationship with "god?"

Demonstrate that your denial of the existence of God is based on something other than ignorance (lack of experience).

Straw man alert. I decidedly do NOT "deny the existence of god" -- but instead maintain over and over that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY be real and MAY influence human lives or "afterlives" (if such thing exists). However, I do not accept claims or stories about any of the proposed "gods" unless strong and convincing evidence is available for me to consider in making an informed decision.

Promoters / proponents of "gods" seem to be a little short on evidence so they resort to testimonials and unverified claims -- and often deliberately and/or incorrectly misstate the position of others (perhaps in an attempt to "win" a debate?).

If the only way you have of demonstrating your point of view is to call me a liar, a claim completely devoid of evidence or effort to obtain it, you're in trouble.

The first step in your response is to abdicate your own knowledge.
The second step is to claim I harbor an intent to lie.
The third step is to hit the "submit" button without a second thought.

You just lost the debate, and you didn't even consider contributing anything of your own.

(I always take it as flattery when someone bases their entire thought process on what I think. The only way that can be true is if you consider me such an authority that nothing you think on your own has value.)

[Zzyzx]

You just lost the debate, and you didn't even consider contributing anything of your own.

(I always take it as flattery when someone bases their entire thought process on what I think. The only way that can be true is if you consider me such an authority that nothing you think on your own has value.)

Flatter yourself as you wish. Imagine that you "won" a debate. Knock yourself out.

I trust that readers reach their own conclusions by evaluating the merits of what is presented (as well as the attitudes conveyed).

[The Me's]

You just lost the debate, and you didn't even consider contributing anything of your own.

(I always take it as flattery when someone bases their entire thought process on what I think. The only way that can be true is if you consider me such an authority that nothing you think on your own has value.)

Flatter yourself as you wish. Imagine that you "won" a debate. Knock yourself out.

I trust that readers reach their own conclusions by evaluating the merits of what is presented (as well as the attitudes conveyed).

Do as you wish.

Given a choice between believing facts (alone) and just going along with what others think, I choose the facts.

(I have a secret for you: so do you.)

[Leucius Charinus]

If one does not know one's history, one is doomed to repeat it.

Even more important, it seems to me, is: If one is ignorant of the history of their religion how can they know that what they profess to believe is anything more than a concocted dogma constructed around questionable ancient tales?

On second thought, once a person learns that what they have been taught or indoctrinated to believe is dogma based on questionable sources, how can they continue to believe that it represents a "god?"

that's just nonsense. we can know it. why do you think they have departments in Biblical studies, history, archaeology and such all over the world in very major university?

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

they wouldn't do that if we couldn't prove anything about the ancinet world.Obviously we can.

Either that or they are just preaching the same old unexamined dogma, handed down from one corrupt generation of the "Church Industry" to the next.

Deviation from the dogma historically attracted execution and or torture, inquisiton and censorship. The dogma was present in the legal system until recent centuries, in the form of "Blasphemy Laws".

you can't prove the miracle bits becasue you go back in time to see it, we do no have time travel (did you know that?).

We have C14 dating. Look what it did for the "Holy Shroud of Turin"

We can study the past through detective work such as archeology and we can prove quite a lot; who were and what they believed.

There is no archaeological evidence for Jesus before the 4th century that would stand up to sceptical scrutiny. The archaeologists have found thousands of figures to hundreds of gods in the ancient world, but not one of these figurines was the Jesus figure.

The archaeologists have found thousands of temples to hundreds of gods in antiquity in and around the Roman Empire, but they have not found one Christian church. Neither have they found the secondary Christian building - a hypothetical "Christian Church House". The tertiary and smallest structure proposed is a "Christian House Church". Yale DIVINITY College "thinks" it has found one of these out on the Persian border at Dura-Europos.

New Testament archaeology is a tautology.

[99percentatheism]

A lot of mainstream scholars are changing their minds on the existence of Jesus.



Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, and Thomas Thompson, renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen believe that you cannot say whether Jesus existed or not.

Thomas Brodie, director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland, and Robert Price, who has two Ph.D.s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies, and Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, are certain Jesus never existed.

A lot is not all. And the extremely low number of so-called scholars used as examples in the OP is laughably short of "all." Just one look into the numbers of scholars that do believe that Jesus lived, exist solidly in the "scholar's" camp.

schol-ar (sklr)
n.
1.
a. A learned person.
b. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
2. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
3. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.


scholar (skl)
n
1. a learned person, esp in the humanities
2. a person, esp a child, who studies; pupil
3. (Education) a student of merit at an educational establishment who receives financial aid, esp from an endowment given for such a purpose
4. South African a school pupil
[C14: from Old French escoler, via Late Latin from Latin scholaschool1]

How has this thread lasted more than one response from the MODS?

[99percentatheism]

If one does not know one's history, one is doomed to repeat it.

Even more important, it seems to me, is: If one is ignorant of the history of their religion how can they know that what they profess to believe is anything more than a concocted dogma constructed around questionable ancient tales?

On second thought, once a person learns that what they have been taught or indoctrinated to believe is dogma based on questionable sources, how can they continue to believe that it represents a "god?"

that's just nonsense. we can know it. why do you think they have departments in Biblical studies, history, archaeology and such all over the world in very major university?

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

they wouldn't do that if we couldn't prove anything about the ancinet world.Obviously we can.

Either that or they are just preaching the same old unexamined dogma, handed down from one corrupt generation of the "Church Industry" to the next.

Deviation from the dogma historically attracted execution and or torture, inquisiton and censorship. The dogma was present in the legal system until recent centuries, in the form of "Blasphemy Laws".

you can't prove the miracle bits becasue you go back in time to see it, we do no have time travel (did you know that?).

We have C14 dating. Look what it did for the "Holy Shroud of Turin"

We can study the past through detective work such as archeology and we can prove quite a lot; who were and what they believed.

There is no archaeological evidence for Jesus before the 4th century that would stand up to sceptical scrutiny. The archaeologists have found thousands of figures to hundreds of gods in the ancient world, but not one of these figurines was the Jesus figure.

The archaeologists have found thousands of temples to hundreds of gods in antiquity in and around the Roman Empire, but they have not found one Christian church. Neither have they found the secondary Christian building - a hypothetical "Christian Church House". The tertiary and smallest structure proposed is a "Christian House Church". Yale DIVINITY College "thinks" it has found one of these out on the Persian border at Dura-Europos.

New Testament archaeology is a tautology.

You start you post with an ad hom and then use the tautology charge?

"The Church" started as a tiny amount of people in a unimportant part of the vast power structure of the worlidwide Roman Empire. "It" was not a publicity vehicle. It was a lifestyle choice based on what a Jewish sage said and did in Judea.

The ridiculous assertion that there isn't a vast array of Christian souvenirs from the ancient ruins of a decayed and dead Roman Empire to "prove" that Jesus existed doesn't pass the Is it sensible? test.

Christian life was never competing with other religions until the Romans grabbed hold of it for political and social purposes. And that wasn't for decades and decades after the Disciples of Jesus were just bones in boxes or the dust.

[Zzyzx]

Christian life was never competing with other religions until the Romans grabbed hold of it for political and social purposes. And that wasn't for decades and decades after the Disciples of Jesus were just bones in boxes or the dust.

It might be more accurate to say that Christianity was competing effectively against other religions, including its parent Judaism " enough so that it was adopted by the Roman empire and used to unify the population under a state mandated religion.

The bible was produced under direction from Roman emperors. The religion was promoted and popularized by Roman decrees. Without Roman backing it seems likely that Christianity would have remained a small splinter group / cult / sect of Judaism.

From words attributed to Jesus he appears to have had no intention of forming a competing religion but sought to improve or purify Judaism. After he died his followers, particularly Paul/Saul had other ideas. They deified / glorified / idolized the dead preacher, courted Roman favor, and eventually became a major religion that dominated Europe for over a thousand years.

Thus, not only was Christianity an effective competitor religion, but it became a theocracy. " with its religious beliefs inflicted on citizens whether they agreed or not (often by force). A few centuries ago the Christian theocracy splintered into factions and it eventually lost much or most of its dominance.

To this day, however, Christian leaders and individuals attempt to maintain some semblance of their former theocracy by promoting secular laws that force their religious views on every citizen.

[Leucius Charinus]

If one does not know one's history, one is doomed to repeat it.

Even more important, it seems to me, is: If one is ignorant of the history of their religion how can they know that what they profess to believe is anything more than a concocted dogma constructed around questionable ancient tales?

On second thought, once a person learns that what they have been taught or indoctrinated to believe is dogma based on questionable sources, how can they continue to believe that it represents a "god?"

that's just nonsense. we can know it. why do you think they have departments in Biblical studies, history, archaeology and such all over the world in very major university?

Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes at major universities have their historical origins in the "Church Industry" of centuries past. The purpose of these is to repeat "Church Industry" dogma, which has not substantially altered over the centuries during which the - historically - depraved "Church Industry" has operated.

they wouldn't do that if we couldn't prove anything about the ancinet world.Obviously we can.

Either that or they are just preaching the same old unexamined dogma, handed down from one corrupt generation of the "Church Industry" to the next.

Deviation from the dogma historically attracted execution and or torture, inquisiton and censorship. The dogma was present in the legal system until recent centuries, in the form of "Blasphemy Laws".

you can't prove the miracle bits becasue you go back in time to see it, we do no have time travel (did you know that?).

We have C14 dating. Look what it did for the "Holy Shroud of Turin"

We can study the past through detective work such as archeology and we can prove quite a lot; who were and what they believed.

There is no archaeological evidence for Jesus before the 4th century that would stand up to sceptical scrutiny. The archaeologists have found thousands of figures to hundreds of gods in the ancient world, but not one of these figurines was the Jesus figure.

The archaeologists have found thousands of temples to hundreds of gods in antiquity in and around the Roman Empire, but they have not found one Christian church. Neither have they found the secondary Christian building - a hypothetical "Christian Church House". The tertiary and smallest structure proposed is a "Christian House Church". Yale DIVINITY College "thinks" it has found one of these out on the Persian border at Dura-Europos.

New Testament archaeology is a tautology.

You start you post with an ad hom and then use the tautology charge?

My comments concerning the history of the "Church Industry" are directed at the organisation of the church which has operated - in the political sense - from the 4th century through the middle ages and to this century. Examination of its history reveals it was utterly corrupt ( forgery, executions, tortures, inquisitions, genocide).

As these comments are not directed against any person, but rather an historically corrupt and ruthless organisation, they are not 'ad hominem'.

"The Church" started as a tiny amount of people in a unimportant part of the vast power structure of the worlidwide Roman Empire. "It" was not a publicity vehicle. It was a lifestyle choice based on what a Jewish sage said and did in Judea.

This may be part of the "Church Industry" dogma, and may not represent real political history at all. The OP lists a number of scholars who's examination of the evidence has resulted in them finding that this Jewish sage said and did nothing in Judea - according to the propaganda story issued and preserved by the "Church Industry" all these centuries - because, they claim, this Jewish sage did not exist.