[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: pilate-inscription.jpg (267 KB, 886x580)
267 KB
267 KB JPG
Is this the most important archaeological discovery ever made? It blows my mind that people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered and proved he was indeed the Prelate in charge of Judea in the early first century. How many other people in history have gone from "Yeah he's probably just a myth" to "Oh shit, I guess he really existed" overnight?
>>
I always assumed that he was based on a real person.

Staunch atheist here btw.
>>
>>3917978
The historical existence of Jesus is - like that of every demigod - questionable.

What we do know, however, is that many of the events depicted in the gospels are not historical.
>>
Pilate stone; Gospels billboard.
I made Pontius Pilate up.
Engraved it myself.

Jesus Christ
>>
>>3918037
The fact that the Bible tries so damn hard to put a date on Jesus's life points there to being some guy in Judea at the time that fit his description.
>>
>>3918037
>many of the events depicted in the gospels are not historical.
But they're definitely the most accurate historical documents from that time period. The fact that the Bible was the only source that Pilate existed until the Pilate stone was found is proof of that.
>>
>>3918396
>In the time of Romans and Greeks who beared many historians, a book with fairytails is the most accurate source of this time!

Yes, sure
>>
>>3918658

>Atlantis is real but the bible is a fairytale
>>
>>3918037
The historicity of Jesus is pretty much accepted by everyone, the same as the mythical state of Moses is accepted. It's called being objective.
t. Atheist
>>
>>3918658
The irony here is that if the gospels weren't collated and put in the Bible you'd be hailing them as historical fact. You have the inability to seperate the Bible as a holy book for Christians from the Bible as a historical document, you're letting your fedora interfere with your objectivity in other words.
>>
>>3917978
I'd say Rosetta stone was more important.
>>
>>3917978
>It blows my mind that people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered

Why? You expect people to just believe the Bible without any evidence?
>>
>>3918688
I still would take the gospels with at least a grain of salt, as they're talking about a man who literally walked above water or that he was beared by a virgin etc. Just like you take the saga talking about Ragnar Loðbrok not too seriously.

I don't exclude the possibility of Jesus beeing a real person or is based on one, there are just many things attributed to his personality or his life that simply didn't or couldn't happen in the real world
>>
File: og-david-hume.jpg (57 KB, 733x550)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
Ere long the perfidious archaeologists' deception will be unveiled. Tis nothing more than a conjured artifact. For what is more likely to be the case? That these things which contradict all sensation - that the Roman nation had been far too noble for a weak and corrupt man as Pontius Pilate to have existed - be sensible; or, that the reporteur is guiding us astray?
>>
>>3918134
This
>>
>>3918706
We believe in the Historia Augusta without any evidence
>>
>>3918811
>We

lol
>>
>>3918668

Thanks for your honesty.
t. non-Christian appreciator of Christianty
>>
>>3918658
In the time when historians were looked down upon as tall tellers except by reactionaries like Cicero you won’t believe the bible
>>
>>3918706
The Bible is evidence though? I don't really understand why they're the only historical writings people demand 3rd party verification for to prove their historical veracity while we take every other historical account at face value.
>>
>>3918706
>evidence
But how history used to work is if only one source existed we used that, thus Justinia has geese eat grain off her trap door
>>
>>3918842
Because the Quaran was remembered orally and thus perfect until written down very late
>>
>>3918658
>fairytales
I wish you brainlets would stop regurgitating the same buzzwords at every opportunity
>>
>>3918706
So you question the validity of Anne Frank’s diary too, right?
>>
>>3918895
Everyone knows Anne Frank was a myth and her book was simply an allegory.
>>
>>3918902
Do you question the validity of Night by Elie Weisel, right?
>>
>>3917978
>people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal
This was literally only something believed by atheist skeptics who want to deny absolutely everything in the NT because they still define their entire identity with reference to Christianity.
>>
File: IMG_0753.jpg (604 KB, 993x1920)
604 KB
604 KB JPG
>>3918037
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[g] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[21][h][i] Jesus was a Galilean Jew[12] who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally[24] and often being referred to as "rabbi".[25] Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers.[26][27] He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities,[28] and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.[26]

>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]
>>
>>3917978
>Prelate
kek
>>
>>3918930
I can't believe the "mythical Jesus" theory was ever seriously considered at all. Really shows the desperation of nu-atheists these days.
>>
>>3917978
>Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered
But Philo's historical work mentioned him tho? It's not like there weren't historical sources for Pilate, even if there wasn't any archeological evidence.
>>
>>3918973
And Jesus was mentioned by Tacitus, that hasn't stopped people claiming he's apocryphal, has it?
>>
>>3918396
>>the most accurate historical documents from that time period
Now, I'm no Jesus myther, but this is pushing things just a bit.
>>
>>3918960
What's a nu-atheist and why would they be desperate? There's less reason now to believe the supernatural claims of any given religious text then there ever has been.
>>
>>3919029
>less reason now than ever before
Not really. It’s just easier to only be exposed to reasons for atheism, now.
>>
File: 1514977691330.jpg (33 KB, 640x633)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>3918887
>>3918838
>>3918665

FFS >>3918396 that guy referred to the bible as the "most accurate" hostorical source for that time. I thought that to be more wrong, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong :)
>>
>>3917978
>Is this the most important archaeological discovery ever made? It blows my mind that people thought Pontius Pilate was apocryphal until this stone was discovered and proved he was indeed the Prelate in charge of Judea in the early first century. How many other people in history have gone from "Yeah he's probably just a myth" to "Oh shit, I guess he really existed" overnight?

What I have written I have written.

Jesus Christ
>>
>>3919021
>Jesus was mentioned by Tacitus
But Tacitus mentioned Jesus in relation to christians, and you could argue he learned of him through them, as hearsay (tho in the light of much scholarship around Tacitus and his works it's indeed very unlikely that he would have reported their beliefs without checking).
Philo on the other hand talks of Pilate from the point of view of a complaining subject who personally had to deal with the guy, within the context of a review of roman administration of Judea under the reign of Tiberius and Caligola. It's pretty much unassailable outside of dismissing Philo outright as an author.
>>
>>3919029
>What's a nu-atheist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

>New Atheism is a term coined in 2006 by the agnostic journalist Gary Wolf to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century. This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics.
In short, they're cancer
>>
>>3918396
Yeah I remember when a floating hand appeared and wrote shit on a fucking wall
>>
>>3919076
You don't need to accept the supernatural elements of the Bible to analyse it's historicity any more than you need to accept Muhammad was actually a prophet to use the Qu'ran as a basis for what his life was like
>>
>>3918930
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally and often being referred to as "rabbi". Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers. He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities, and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.

>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am only the author of Gospels
and Revelation (five published works). Nobody killed me.

Thank you for reading my Gospels and Revelation,
hope many future generations enjoy them also.

"Moses 5 books, Jesus 5 books."

Jesus Christ
>>
>>3918838
>historians were looked down upon as tall tellers

Got any contemporary source that discredits all or even most historians from Hellenic and Roman eras of classicsl history?
>>
>>3918688
>it's as historical as every other source that has other primary sources and archeological evidence which corroborate it. You just think that because it's the Bible it's wrong. Just like you took Hesiod's poems verbatim, and the Volsung Saga, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Beowulf poems, and etc.
>>
>>3918930
Haha christians worship a dead kike
>>
>>3919198
>it's as historical as every other source that has other primary sources and archeological evidence which corroborate it
Like...The Bible?
>>
>>3919198
Dude, what? Who is talking about taking poems and sagas literally?
>>
File: BqWklnfCIAAWgrL.jpg (45 KB, 465x414)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>3918134
>>3919047
>>3919096
kys
>>
>>3919186
>in that time
>contemporary
>>
>>3919262
Yes that's exactly what contemporary means.
>>
>>3919212
>this person the Bible mentions has evidence indicating his existence
>this is archeological corroboration of the entire of the Old Testament

Get back to me when you find some evidence about world-wide floods, prophets parting seas from divine intervention, humans originating from two normal humans several thousand years ago rather than through evolution over millions of years, and the other shit you take at face value.
>>
>>3919273
I’m retarded. I forgot it had two definitions.
>>
>>3919212
The bible
Says humanity went through two genetic bottlenecks of a single familial line.
It says
Jews were mass enslaved by egyptians
It says
At one point an entire city was gay and that city was obliterated with meteorites.
It says
God lost a wrestling match to a human
It says
At one point a mountain was raised on top of an entire people in order to black mail them into circumcision.
It says a
Lot of retarded shit that has no corroborative evidence is what Im saying.
What little evidence there is of similar events only highlights how insanely out of whack and misrepresented tge bible is.
>>
>>3917978
You fell for the oldest and most often used trick in the book.
>>
>>3919305
Not OP, but what trick? Bending facts?
>>
>>3919290
>>3919296
>(((Old Testament)))
>>
>>3919296
The thread is about the historicity of events as described by the books of the New Testament, why are you pulling up shit from the OT that has no relevance to the first century AD? Are you even aware that the Bible is a compilation of books or what?
>>
>>3919296
For fuck’s sake stop shitposting.
>>
>>3919390
He was replying to someone that just made a post saying "the bible".
>>
>>3919405
Isn't it obvious from the context of the thread that we're solely discussing the NT? I didn't think it needed to be explicitly specified, I guess I forgot what type of autists post here.
>>
>>3919414
Yes, you have forgotten what kind of people you share this board with. I was in a thread just yesterday with someone that said because Jesus was in "the bible" and is believed to be historical by historians it proves Moses was as well. These things do have to be spelt out to most Christians I am afraid even if you are a bit more clued up and nuanced.
>>
>>3919367
I don't see it any better in the NT... For example: The NT says that Herodes killed every newborn boy in Palestinia after recieving the message that "a new king was born". No other historical records mentions a mass killing in Palestinia...
Or that Augustus conducted a census for which every citizen had to go back to their place of heritage. The census is somewhat real, but imagine everyone had to move back to where they were born? The economy would collapse without anyone working for several weeks...
>>
File: Titulus_Crucis.jpg (397 KB, 1004x708)
397 KB
397 KB JPG
Doubting the historicity of Jesus is a rather modern phenomenon, with few backing it.

Artifacts of such important events do make me rock hard. It doesn't even have to be Christian, just something tangible that points to a specific important event in time. I always want to believe they're real.
>>
New Testament is a valid source of historical information on the time period but it needs to be approached with some skepticism.
>>
>>3918396
>But they're definitely the most accurate historical documents from that time period. The fact that the Bible was the only source that Pilate existed until the Pilate stone was found is proof of that.

Pilate was an obscure bureaucrat from some irrelevant backwater. It's only because of Jesus that we're even talking about the guy. You can excuse Roman historians for not listing every minor administrator for every little area.
>>
>>3917978
Pilate is referred to by several near-contemporary, non-Christian ancient writers.
>>
>>3919390
>historical events
>and then the spaghetti monster flew by these proper nouns we plagarized from a reap text... And his red sauce was good. And it proves our degenerate lifestyle is blessed by the the Pasta Pontif.
>>
>>3919440
That's where historical literacy pays off, it's actually quite easy to sift out the events which were a little bit of editors taking liberties. With regard to the census the historical Jesus was clearly from Nazareth, but had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfil the messiah prophecy. Thus the gospels make the specific point of Joseph having to travel there for a census.
>>
>>3919414
>Wow you didn't just assume that when I said "the bible" that I actually meant only part of the bible which best favors my argument and which Christians don't see as any less valid than the New Testament.
>>
>>3919467
Are you suggesting that historians don't think the non-supernatural events of the new testament actually occurred? The depiction of Jesus life as a preacher, his movements and his eventual crucifixion is more or less accepted as fact.
>>
>>3919440
Herod ORDERED the newborns to be killed. Evidently that order was not all that successful, given the fact that newborn Jesus didn’t die.
>the economy would collapse without anyone working for several weeks
Ignoring the fact that many families were self-sufficient and survived off their own farms, many jobs in that time period could easily be filled by whoever was there at the time. One field worker leaves to return to hometown for census, other person who doesn’t have to leave, or moved back to the town the field work left, fills that role.
>>
>>3919451
All sources of everything should be approached with skepticism.
>>
>>3919478
>I actually meant only part of the bible which best favors my argument
Correction I meant only the part of the bible which is directly relevant to the thread, which is the NT. You're the one who saw a chance to go into turbo fedora tip mode and bring up a lot of irrelevant things from the OT to score points.

I'm not even Christian so I have no idea why you're going nuts trying to disprove the Bible to me.
>>
>>3919485
His crucifixion and baptism are pretty much accepted as facts, the rest is argued over ad nauseum with multiple schools of thought on how much of the rest is true and what Jesus' teaching actually consisted of.
>>
>>3919485
>Is more or less accepted as fact

No not really. There's a sizable portion who still don't think Jesus existed as there is no hard evidence for it and his only mention in non-Christian sources are after the fact and by historians that took liberties with verifying fact. There is another sizable portion who thinks he existed but only his baptism and crucifixion are what can be reliably corroborated by non-Christian sources. Beyond that, it's difficult to argue what further is reliably corroborated.

>>3919504
This thread is about Pontius Pilate and other people that were assumed to be myth but have since been proven. Then if you follow the quote chain you will see the posters REPEATEDLY discuss the historical value of "the Bible."

But see above for mostnof what he have historically corroborated by the gospels. (It's not much.)
>>
File: bart-ehrman.jpg (63 KB, 850x400)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>3919534
>There's a sizable portion who still don't think Jesus existed
They're considered fruit-loops by the mainstream. No serious biblical scholar considers the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a serious theory. Bart Ehrman in particular is scathing of people who deny the historical Jesus and says they're more interested in attacking religion than uncover historical truth, an assessment I agree with. You can safely discount anyone who pushes the mythical Jesus theory because inevitably it comes with a whole bunch of anti-Christian polemic that really doesn't have any place in an objective historical examination
>>
>>3919238
This
>>
>>3919557
That's cool that that dude's opinion is people who disagree with him are wrong but I am just simply explaining the scholarly consensus in as unbias a manner as possible. A sizable portion think he has not been proven to exist because of the lack of mention in credible sources (of which Tacitus is not) and no hard evidence. I disagree with this opinion but it is not a discounted belief on the subject among scholars. Furthermore the group of scholars who think Jesus didn't exist far outweigh the group of scholars who think there is historical evidence for his preachings. I agree though that it appears to be the majority think he lived, was baptized, and was crucified which is my belief as well. It is, however, inaccurate to say Jesus's existence is more or less accepted as fact because it is not because it is still not accepted as such by a sizable group.
>>
>>3919648
Virtually no new testament scholars support the Christ myth theory. The very first line about it from wikipedia is:

>The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus never existed, or that if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. This theory has very little support among current scholars.

It's not a serious theory and it's not supported by any mainstream academics.

https://ehrmanblog.org/bart-ehrman-robert-price-debate-did-jesus-exist/
>As many of you know, this past October I had a public debate with Robert Price on the question of whether Jesus actually existed. To my knowledge Robert is the only “mythicist” (one who thinks Jesus is a complete myth) who actually has a PhD in the relevant field of New Testament studies. For years I’ve been asked by people to debate a mythicist; I’ve always resisted, in part because I’ve thought that by doing so I would lend credibility to their view, which, in my judgment, is not credible.

So yes, Jesus existence IS actually accepted as fact by ALMOST ALL New Testament scholars. No there is NOT a "sizable portion" who think Jesus never existed and the ones who do push that theory are regarded as wingnuts who have a grudge against religion than an actual historical case.
>>
>>3919691
Don't pull an uncited wiki quote to support your argument. It's worth bo more than citing a post on 4chab. More importantly though, don't pull an uncited blogpost from someone who has every motivation to not be unbias and also qualifies his statement by specifically citing someone with a PhD in New Testament Studies. You don't need a PhD in New Testament studies to be considered a scholar on the subject (i.e. someone qualified to peer review a paper on the matter).
>>
>>3919557
>biblical scholar
there is your problem. biblical scholars are in no way historians you giant dolt.
The wikipedia "article" you quote is a messed up POS with poor references and sourcing, and presents no evidence of the historicity of jesus.
>>
>>3919497
Maria and Joseph fled to Egypt, thats how Jesus survived. And what logic is behind ordering everyone to their place of birth for a census?
>>
>>3919716
>Don't pull an uncited wiki quote to support your argument
You don't get to pick and choose what can be used when you've provided absolutely nothing to back up your own assertions. I've provided multiple quotes from one of the worlds leading New Testament scholars about how the mythical Jesus theory is not supported and you've provided nothing but shit pulled out of your ass about how there is a "sizable portion" who do.

Frankly you're being a bit of a cheeky cunt by saying anything about my sources when you've got absolutely fuck all backing you up but your own word.
>>
>>3919734
No credible historians support the Jesus myth theory either
>>
>>3919759
I don't get to say your sources are uncited when they're uncited? If you wanted sources from me about the support of "jesus myth theory" all you have to do is ask, friend.
>>
>>3919804
You don't get to criticize my sources when you are not producing any of your own. Go ahead and find sources but you'll only be able to find wingnuts.
>>
>>3919469
Thank, that explains it rather then "muh babli iz acurete"
>>
>>3919068
Why?
>>
>>3920145
I don't get it either, how is arguing against superstition in politics cancer?
>>
>>3919648
>sizable
That’s such a nondescription. Majority? Minority? 10%? “Sizable” is so subjective
>>
>>3919735
To get the most accurate census that can compare to past censuses?
>>
>>3920396
>>3920145
>superstition
>>
>>3920417
I know the reason! I'd like to know the logic
>>
>>3920602
Is that reason illogical?
>>
>>3920608
The reason is not, call me a fucking brainlet, but I don't get the logic behind it. How does the census become more accurate when everyone is in their hometown?
>>
>>3920426
Then what about irrationalism?
>>
>>3920699
My best guess would be that it would help determine the number of people that were born or died in any given hometown. From a numbers standpoint. This would help determine rate of population growth in specific areas.
>>
>>3920727
What would atheism have to do with rationalism or irrationalism?
>>
>>3920728
You could simply ask: where were you born?

Wasn't it more like >>3919469 suggest?
>>
>>3920733
Okay, so those wankers think that this is actually the case? FFS, there really are some special kinds among us
>>
>>3918396
you are crazy the roman historians are a better read
>>
Okay look,

Setting aside the whole christard vs atheist slapfight for a second, why in the fuck is it so hard to believe that a religious/political dissident named Yeshua Bin Joseph was born, lived, pissed some people off, and then got killed for doing so?

>>but the lack lack of sources
He was an irrelevant person from an irrelevant backwater. No shit nobody really cared about him at the time.
>>
Lots of Bronze Age shit that people only knew from the Bible and mythology like Troy
>>
>>3918845
I want to believe.
>>
>>3920753
Yeah could be that too.
But to be fair, the government isn’t known for its logic and efficiency.
>>
>>3920827
>>3920834
I don't exclude his existence. Where did I imply that the bible shouldn't be trusted at all?

Garden Eden, Hypoborea, Atlantis and other equivalents could've existed somewhere at some time. Of course not exactly as depicted(e.g.:was the historical Atlantis really build and ruled by Neptun? ).
>>
>>3920918
Well, I don't know about roman-augustean one, but generally you're right, desu
>>
File: 20131009_165632.jpg (63 KB, 480x640)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>3918134 >>3919047 >>3919096 >>3919238
So was there a Pontius Pilate or not back then?
Doesn't anyone know anything concrete here?
>>
>>3918037
I don't really doubt that there really was a Jesus. We'll probably never know what the historical Jesus was like since the church decided to go with a divine Jesus in the bible, instead of a more human figure. If he did exist he's arguably the most influential person of all time.
>>
>>3918037
The historicity of Jesus is pretty established anon, only differing on events that happened in his life and comparing the gospels. The only events the historians and scholars believe probably happens are Jesus’s baptism and his crucifixtion.
>>
>>3917978
In the year 2154 trash archaeologists found the hardrives of a memelord.
>>
File: Indiana Jones-2.jpg (12 KB, 480x360)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>3918668
>The historicity of Jesus is pretty much accepted by everyone, the same as the mythical state of Moses is accepted.

Shlomo, please. There is absolutely zero archeological evidence to support anything in the Old Testament.
>>
>>3921182
That's why he said that everyone agrees Moses was a myth.
>>
>>3918930
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically
>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain
100% objective lol. The phraseology speaks by itself, never forget that wiki articles are written by average Joes and are certainly not a primary source.
>>
>>3921265
Wiki articles link/cite their sources, brainlet
>>
>>3921299
A source on why "Virtually everyone says that..."? Are you kidding?
>>
>>3921344
>never forget that wiki articles are written by average Joes and are certainly not a primary source.
That’s a retarded and irrelevant point to make, since there are copious amounts of citations throughout wiki pages. Nobody said Wikipedia was a primary source.
>>
>>3921182
>being this much of a dumbass
>>
File: richmanlaz5.png (655 KB, 1127x734)
655 KB
655 KB PNG
>>3918037
>>3921044

>The historical existence of Jesus is - like that of every demigod

No, I'm really a god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYXlvtwaODw
>>
>>3920827
I don't think anyone, credible at least, is saying that it isn't possible or probable but rather saying "it's a fact that Jesus existed" without reliable proof is inaccurate.
>>
>>3920408
I left it nondescript for a reason. There isn't a fucking survey they take on the matter but it's not a majority and the question is significant enough or raised often enough that articles are still regularly published on the matter.

>>3919820
See this the thing though. I only have to prove that people still question the historical authenticity whereas you were trying to claim that there is no scholarly questioning. Here are some moderns sources for proponents of the Mythical Christ theory (and people qualified as scholars on the subject who would be capablr of peer reviewing an article):

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/08/car388028.shtml
https://books.google.com/books?id=EWIJoAEACAAJ
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_End_of_Biblical_Studies.html?id=1hD1I1VPP_8C
>>
>>3924335
I'm just going to say before I open any of those links that if any of them are by Richard Carrier your argument is effectively over. He's not credible at all.
>>
>>3924335
>Avalos's thesis is in brief that Biblical studies has found that the Bible is culturally alien, historically unreliable, and ethically reprehensible; and that Biblical scholars systematically hide these findings from the public at large to secure their continued prestige and employment.
Sounds like an objective unbiased historian right there. I'm sure I can trust this guy who clearly has an emotional stake in whether people accept Christianity or not.
>>
>>3924363
>>3924351
I REALLY encourage you to read the comment chain before making smug replies. I really grow tired of repeating myself.
>>
>>3924335
>there isn’t a survey
So you’re talking out your ass?
A vocal minority is not “a sizable amount” or anything that should be taken seriously. Remember, 3% or scientists that publish studies about Climate Change don’t think it’s real
>>
>>3924411
Anon stated X is seen as fact by all scholars on the subject. I said no and provided proof. I even say it's not the majority opinion. How fucking dense do you have to be not to be able to follow this chain of logic? I am not saying it's the academic consensus, rather it's discussed enough in scholarly articles that the issue isn't settled. Please, anon.
>>
>>3924432
He stated that all, genuine authorities on the subject agree. Which is true.
>>
>>3924402
You don't think it undermines your point that the only academics who push the Christ myth theory also happen to be professional atheist personalities?

>Avalos also argues that the field is in decline and the only remaining service it can do to humanity is to hasten the erosion of Biblical influence in modern life.\
How can you read that and think he's presenting good science and not biased anti-Christian polemic? You're basically saying "Nazis aren't so bad, look these scholars agree" and pointing to noted neo-nazis as "evidence". Or perhaps that "not all climate scientists agree the globe is warming" and pointing to the 1% of petroleum funded scientists who shill.

At the end of the day what matters is that you were wrong about a "significant" amount of historians buy into in the Christ myth theory. You undermined your own argument, you shows it's only a fringe handful of people who actually have skin in the game and have other reasons to push the theory other than simply whether it's historical fact. They're not truth seekers, they're atheist polemicists
>>
>>3924432
Anon stated that it was more or less accepted as fact. Then some moron came in saying
>not really, there’s a sizable portion... etc
>>
>>3924432
>rather it's discussed enough in scholarly articles that the issue isn't settled
Sure if you mean in the same way climate change is "discussed" and the issue isn't "settled". If we're accepting a minority of rabble rouses who have vested interests in defying the consensus of actual qualified academics who almost universally agree on a conclusion. The experts have spoken anon, let it go. Just because there are some scientists on oil companies payrolls saying it's not real isn't a reason to say the issue isn't settled, nor is listening to historians who make money by cruising around the lecture circuit giving seminars on atheism.
>>
>>3924446
I literally didn't use those words and that's an extraordinarily vague way to try to discount dissent that you don't agree with. Difference between climate change deniers and christ mythers is that historical jesus people still have to put out articles and symposiums arguing their point, climate scientists do not.

>>3924461
I don't think I'm saying the Christ myth is credible. If you took 30 seconds to scrolling back through the quote chain I think you would find that I said I don't believe this theory. However, being an atheist personality discredits their opinion no more than being a New Testament scholar discredits the people who want to assert most/all of the gospel is fact. Scholars have bias and motives. This is nothing new and suddenly doesn't make them not scholars.

>>3924482
It would behoove you to educate yourself on how academic literature is published, specifically the peer review system.
>>
>>3924492
>climate scientists do not
You are absolutely ignorant of the facts
>>
>>3924492
>Scholars have bias and motives. This is nothing new and suddenly doesn't make them not scholars.
True but when a persons ideology has a big influence over the conclusions they want to draw their arguments must be looked at as suspect. If a noted neo-nazi but qualified historian wrote a paper on the Holocaust and how it was fake would you not look askance at it? Question whether his ideology as a neo-nazi might be influencing him and causing him to argue for a conclusion he had already pre-determined before any study? Especially when such a person is clashing with the mainstream opinion which is the complete opposite.

Your two sources are Richard Carrier, who is more notable for being a new-atheist personality than a historian these days, and a person who said the field of New Testament studies is "the field is in decline and the only remaining service it can do to humanity is to hasten the erosion of Biblical influence in modern life."

On the other hand we have atheist scholars who do not engage in atheist polemic saying it's pretty much fact the historical Jesus existed.

Again, I have to ask why are you essentially arguing that climate change can't be real because the BP climate scientist said so?
>>
>>3917978
He was real and had trouble pronouncing the letter r.
>>
>>3924492
>This (the historicity of Jesus) is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity who doubts that Jesus existed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww [Embed]
>>
>>3924598
>asking for evidence from someone giving a speech
Absurd and doesn’t actually prove a point.
>>
File: 1510222487301.png (50 KB, 645x729)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>3924637
>Foremost New Testament scholar in the world saying there is no dispute over the fact Jesus existed doesn't prove a point
>>
>>3924649
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the guy in the crowd was dumb for asking for evidence
>>
>>3924598
That's again cool that someone's opinion, a person EXTRAORDINARILY bias on the topic I might add, is to downplay people who disagree with him but is just wrong in this statement.

>>3924523
Oooh I see the issue. I linked Carrier twice. I have three sources in the original link and the second source was meant to be this: http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml

Three sources from three separate PhD scholars that believe the Christ myth theory. In regards to your point though, the 3% of Climate Scientists on payroll have to release their supposed evidence through non-scholarly means because it will not, without a shadow of a doubt, pass peer review. These historians can get their work through peer review and the way that is done is because there are enough of them thay believe it to get the work rubber-stamped.
>>
>>3924523
Here's another source acknowledging that the debate is still ongoing.

"Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources"

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=imwjournal
>>
>>3924697
Applying Bayesian probability to history is pseudoscience.
>>
>>3924726
Don't hurt your back lifting that goalpost.
>>
>>3924744
Not Him, but it’s not moving goalposts, he’s just pointing out how it’s not evidence/an argument.
>>
>>3924756
It's an article from a person with a PhD in religious studies that talks about the debate in the field about Christ as a historical figure and it passed peer review. I don't care what that anon's opinion on the contents are because the only thing I am proving is that people still discuss this topic in the academic world, not the value of the Christ myth theory.

In that regard, yes it is shifting goalposts.
>>
File: Really.jpg (24 KB, 306x303)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>3924744
>Almost all scientists agree modern medicine is the best way to treat illness
>Here's a paper saying homeopathy is the most effective treatment!
>Homeopathy is pseudoscience
>Wow! Moving the goalposts lol XDDDDD
>>
>>3924770
>anon makes an inaccurate analogy
>uses buzzphrases
>and posts pepe
>>
>>3924768
>that people still discuss this topic in the academic world
In the same way that people still "discuss" climate change in the academic world, sure. I'm just not sure what your point is by showing there are a tiny minority of academics who go against consensus. Ok? But I still believe in climate change. I still believe the historical Jesus existed. You're literally acting like a conservative telling people to "teach the controversy! Not everyone believes in evolution!"

Do you think creationism should be taught in schools anon? Do you? Because these are some fringe academics who believe in it? I assume you don't so why are you saying "teach the controversy" with the fact Jesus existed? No credible scholar supports that theory, period and you're making yourself look dumb by using the exact same arguments that retard creationists do.

Geez it's almost like you, like the people you keep citing, are not actually interesting in factual history but are more interested in being able to push an anti-Christian narrative. Go figure. Keep acting like a slimy creationist climate change denier and it's clear you're driven by agenda, not truth.
>>
>>3924815
These are some pretty big conclusions you're jumping to that none of my posts remotely state.

>In the same way that people still "discuss" climate change in the academic world

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=climate+change&btnG=

Do your homework. No recent scholarly articles about climate change entertain the notion it is not real. The only debate ongoing in the academic world is the severity to which it effects us and how quickly catastrophic events will happen. The reason for this is because of the peer review system.
>>
>>3924768
>that people still discuss it
So fucking what? Anon said that it is more or less accepted.
>>
>nu-male atheist brainlets derail the thread try to seem smart with their autistic grudge against the Christian faith: The thread #4285
It's all so tiresome.jpg
>>
>>3924844
I'll finish this by saying that if you accept evolution and climate change are real then you should accept Jesus existed because around the same proportion of experts on the topics agree. If you want to give credence to fringe wingnuts whose opinions are not considered credible you need to do it in all three cases. Otherwise, as they say "the science is settled". Trying to create a narrative where there is dissent is using exactly the same strategy as climate change deniers use to try and convince people it could go either way and it's false.
>>
>>3924860
Lol, christians are the new fedora since nu-/pol/
>>
File: Just.png (174 KB, 600x390)
174 KB
174 KB PNG
>>3924860
The funny thing is I'm not even Christian. I'm just tired of brainlets trying to twist historical fact to fit their personal agendas. New atheist fedora wearers are almost as bad as holocaust deniers at this point, as far as trying tor revise history to fit their constructed narrative.
>>
>>3924846

Is what he said:

>The depiction of Jesus life as a preacher, his movements and his eventual crucifixion is more or less accepted as fact.

And no, if all of those points (ESPECIALLY the historical accuracy of his preachings and movements) are still being debated on-going in the field then they are not "accepted as fact."

>>3924865
>Because around the same proportion of experts on the topic agree

Experts or scholars? What's your criteria for them? Is it the same as this video >>3924598

Do you have statistics to prove that the proportion of experts are approx 3% or less?

>>3924877
>historical facts
>>
>>3924879
>clearly biased nobodies making retarded arguments against what is generally accepted
Nah, yeah I’d say it’s still generally accepted as fact by those in the corresponding field
>>
>>3924885
>the New Testament scholars mentioned earlier aren't bias
>I don't like this evidence so I'm going to ignore it

I'm surprised the discussion went this long before you gave up.
>>
>>3924895
I mean, you literally believe that because there are people who dispute evolution and climate change that those areas of science are not accepted as fact so...
>>
>>3924860
>>3924862
Almost outted yourself there anon.
>>
>>3924916
I literally never said that, anon. You are trying to strawman my argument out of frustration.
>>
>>3924895
You’re a dedicated troll, I’ll give you that. Or you’re denser than the center of a black hole
>>
>>3924877
>The H*locaust
>Real
Read a book, brainlet.
**No really, Debating the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton. It really is an eye opener that examines both arguments in an objective way, highly recommend it**
I don't know if spoilers work, I don't usually post on cuckchan.
>>
>>3924929
I don't even know why people want to argue. I readily admit that I subscribe to the belief that a figure comparable to Jesus did exist around that time, was baptised, and was crucified. I think the Christ Myth theory is pretty weak and using statistical models for any form of natural sciences/humanities is always sketchy at best. I am not trying to champion this theory as it embodies most of what I disliked about modern historical scholarship; however, it's just wrong though to say it's not debated by the scholars.
>>
>>3924926
If you don't then you're being logically incoherent. There's no difference between claiming that because a small minority of academics who are poorly regarded continue to argue against consensus that the science isn't settled.

>This (the historicity of Jesus) is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity who doubts that Jesus existed

This is the most well known and respected New Testament scholar in the world saying that NOT ONE of the people who he considers his contemporaries support the mythical Jesus theory. It's not taught as an alternative, it's not considered credible.

And your only response has been to hold up Richard Carrier who is considered a professional troll as your best hope of arguing that there isn't clear consensus in the academic circle of the historicity of Jesus. Just sad. Logically if you're willing to support a "teach the controversy" attitude with this subject why wouldn't you do that with evolution? There are still people who dispute that, academics even. If not then why is it specifically in this case you are willing to ignore the consensus of the academic community and instead hold the 1% of dissenters mean that it's not settled.

You're simply being disingenuous. If you were interested in pure fact then you'd have to accept that the historical Jesus did exist, but because you've hitched your cart to this extreme fringe you need to argue the absurd.
>>
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hwmwr/on_the_historicity_of_jesus_why_we_might_have/

>Richard Carrier has never been broadly accepted by the academic biblical community. His status remains as that of a hyper-minimalist and, as far as I'm concerned, he is more of a troll than anything else. Carrier has significant deficiencies in his training yet pontificates on many and various issues on which he is not equipped to comment. His work seeks to justify his agenda (i.e., minimalist, atheist, etc.) and does not do due diligence to the data set available to researchers.

>It seems telling that Richard Carrier needed to introduce his own historical method, the use of Bayes theorem in a quantitative way, to argue for mythicism.

Your argument is going to live or die based on the validity of this guys scholarship. Uh oh.
>>
>>3924987
>small minority of academics
Nice renegotiation of the wording there so you don't have to cite figures for the size of this group; however, care provide a study or survey that shows that historical jesus IS the scholarly consensus.
>quote from a Christian at a Christian University with a degree in bible studies that does not cite any evidence to prove his point is proof of no debate
>you'd have to accept that the historical Jesus did exist
I did. From my very first reply to this one. You just insist on crafting an argument in your head that I am not making
>>
>>3925005
I cited three other scholars with PhDs in comparable fields and their peer reviewed works on the matter. You cited a reddit post that cited this guy
http://thomstark.net/?page_id=2

Also let's scroll down the comment chain there:

>While this is all true, in the interests of fairness I feel one should point out that whether Carrier is right or wrong, he is certainly not professionally incompetent as you imply. He's had a moderate number of articles published in respectable journals, of which the following are especially pertinent:

>* "Thallus and the Darkness at Christ's Death." *Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism* 8 (2011-12) 185-91.

>* "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, *Jewish Antiquities* 20.200." *Journal of Early Christian Studies* 20.4 (2012) 489-514.

>* "The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, *Annals* 15.44." *Vigiliae Christianae* 68 (2014) 264-83.

>That has no bearing on whether they're *right*, of course. But automatically dismissing him as marginal looks like an unwise kind of attack. These are all respected, peer-reviewed journals.

Why not try reading what you're citing, anon?
>>
>>3925044
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and that quote comes from a function for the "Freedom from Religion Foundation".

>In conjunction with the Triangle Freethought Society, FFRF’s active Raleigh-area chapter, the gathering “won hearts and minds for reason and secularism.” CNN was scheduled to cover some of the event for an upcoming documentary on atheism.'

Now that you've outed yourself as a historically illiterate dumbass you can go.
>>
>>3925069
Carrier isn't respected within the field at all his way of analysing history with bayes theorem is pseudoscience. It's honestly hilarious that you're holding him up as your big hope that maybe you can find just one reputable scholar who can get your foot in the door to argue there's dissent. Except nope, he's just a troll whose work is mostly considered to be polemic, shame.
>>
>>3925087
I cited three other scholars anon. You are focusing on Carrier because it's easiest. I am not championing his work. I readily admit I don't like it. Stop fabricating a narrative.

>>3925074
Does Dr. Ehrman give any citations for his claims made in that quote? I would love to see them.
>>
>>3919068
I don't see the problem.
>>
>>3918037
Wasn't it Paulus that spread Christianity outside the Jewish community?
>>
>>3924770
homeopathy IS pseudoscience and deserving of ridicule I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
>>
>>3918140
You know there is more than four Evangelia?
>>
>>3925122
>I cited three other scholars anon.
You mean the guy who argued
>Avalos also argues that the field is in decline and the only remaining service it can do to humanity is to hasten the erosion of Biblical influence in modern life.
I thought we both agreed that he's clearly agenda driven. Personally I think it's rather telling that two of your sources for mythical jesus being a credible theory are rabid atheists/anti-christians, but I'm sure you'll argue that it's just coincidence. Wouldn't you say that it's difficult to be objective about NT study while simultaneously claiming that it needs to be erased from modern life? Food for thought

Finally your last source uses Bayes theory as well, which as I pointed out, is pseudoscience. You can't assign probabilities to historical events, it's completely arbitrary and the only two people who do it are polemicists from either end of the debate spectrum, Richard Carrier and William Lane Craig, and they both claim they end up with directly contradicting conclusions! Wow fancy that. It's almost as if when you're assigning the probability of events occurring based on your gut feeling you can achieve just about any result you want.

Again, it's telling that 2 of these 3 mythicists are using a technique that no other NT historian does, and one that was developed by a mythicist for the sole purpose of proving his Jesus myth theory correct. Weird isn't it? How these people who disagree with academic orthodoxy need to resort to these strange and unsupported methods to get conclusions they want.
>>
>>3925181
>homeopathy IS pseudoscience and deserving of ridicule
So is applying bayes theorem to historical analysis.
>>
>>3925184
I find it rather telling that you can't count the number of sources I listed, that you insist that an atheist is unqualified to speak against historical Jesus theory while a Christian or someone thoroughly indoctrinated in Christian culture is fine in speaking in favor of the historical Jesus theory, that you insist something is pseudoscience without evidence (you know, that thing that they used to prove homeopathic medicine was pseudoscience), and that you insist I am supporting a theory that from my very first reply I have said that I don't.
>>
>>3919503
Yeah man I don't think it was six gorrilion either.
>>
>>3921971
>dropping your name so people can’t filter you
Lmao fuck off schizo
>>
>>3917978
My man Pontius, did the right thing killing that thug called Jesus.
>>
>>3919456
Yuh
>>
>>3917978
> Is this the most important archaeological discovery ever made?

Not by a long shot. Just off the top of my head:

Rosetta Stone
Troy
Mask of Agamemnon
Earliest cities in Anatolia
Machu Picchu




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.