Muhammad was a Feminist

[Giancarlo]

Those are mere assumptions not backed by actual evidence. The existence of jesus is even more disputable than certain historical figures.

[Elok]

Okay, from the top:

• Carrier and Price have relevant degrees (though Carrier collaborated with the silly crank from your first article).
• Crossan and Ehrman do as well, but believe in the historicity of Jesus.
• Aslan is underequipped to argue the point, but for the record is also pro-historic.
• Had to dig a bit to find out that Atwill is a computer expert who dabbles in religion, and that Carrier, Price and Ehrman have all publicly called him an idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar...siah#Criticism
• Marcus Borg was a Crossan collaborator who accepted HJ.
• David Fitzgerald does not seem to have any grounding in ancient religion or history. He's a popular author, like Richard Dawkins but apparently not a scientist. At least, his Wiki doesn't have an education section, and refers to him as an "author, public speaker, and atheist activist."

So, that's two people with relevant credentials (possibly the same two JM's Ehrman article referred to), plus various amateurs and kooks and a number of people who disagree. Shall we go digging to find out how many biologists and doctors support Creationism or refusing vaccines? We could probably find more than two.

[Lorizael]

Those are mere assumptions not backed by actual evidence. The existence of jesus is even more disputable than certain historical figures.

Sure, I'm much more confident in the existence of, say, JFK than I am of Jesus. But I'm probably more confident in the existence of Jesus than, say, Homer. The point is that this is a complicated, messy issue, which means that (a) blanket statements such as "absolutely zero evidence" are just wrong, and (b) I defer to the experts. The consensus among historians is that there was a historical Jesus, and I can't think of a good reason to doubt that consensus. That doesn't mean you can't find evidence that Jesus didn't exist (as you have); it means I am not swayed by any particular bit of evidence because I am not a historian and don't have all the tools necessary to evaluate it. This is roughly analogous to the idea that you shouldn't accept the veracity of a random study showing that your favorite food causes cancer. Yes, it's evidence, but it's not the consensus. Why not? Ask the experts and see what they have to say about the matter.

[kentonio]

There is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

Except there is..

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe he was the son of god any more than I believe Joseph Smith was reading the word of god out of his hat, but there's nothing irrational or even unlikely about there having been a real Jesus. Cults usually start with a charasmatic leader.

[Giancarlo]

Sure, I'm much more confident in the existence of, say, JFK than I am of Jesus. But I'm probably more confident in the existence of Jesus than, say, Homer. The point is that this is a complicated, messy issue, which means that (a) blanket statements such as "absolutely zero evidence" are just wrong, and (b) I defer to the experts. The consensus among historians is that there was a historical Jesus, and I can't think of a good reason to doubt that consensus. That doesn't mean you can't find evidence that Jesus didn't exist (as you have); it means I am not swayed by any particular bit of evidence because I am not a historian and don't have all the tools necessary to evaluate it. This is roughly analogous to the idea that you shouldn't accept the veracity of a random study showing that your favorite food causes cancer. Yes, it's evidence, but it's not the consensus. Why not? Ask the experts and see what they have to say about the matter.

Then we aren't going to convince each other. I am an atheist. And we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Giancarlo]

Elok... Seems like all you can do is attack people who have more credibility than you. You have nothing as I suspected. Sugarcoated version of Ben.

[Ming]

Elok... Seems like all you can do is attack people who have more credibility than you.

Gee... that's hilarious coming from you... the guy that resorts to insults for anybody that disagrees with him.

[Lorizael]

Then we aren't going to convince each other. I am an atheist. And we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe in the Christian god either, but that doesn't mean I have to reject the existence of an historical Jesus. Like, Joseph Smith clearly existed, but... oh, kentonio already made that point.

[Giancarlo]

Gee... that's hilarious coming from you... the guy that resorts to insults for anybody that disagrees with him.

Bull****.

[Giancarlo]

I don't believe in the Christian god either, but that doesn't mean I have to reject the existence of an historical Jesus. Like, Joseph Smith clearly existed, but... oh, kentonio already made that point.

Well I reject the existence of a historical jesus. So what's the issue here?

[Ming]

Bull****.

Simply the truth. You have thrown out more insults than just about any poster here. And if you continue, it won't be a problem here much longer.

[Giancarlo]

Simply the truth. You have thrown out more insults than just about any poster here. And if you continue, it won't be a problem here much longer.

Bull****! No I haven't. Period.

[kentonio]

Well I reject the existence of a historical jesus. So what's the issue here?

You're rejecting something that has fairly solid historical evidence supporting it. You can reject the existence of cows too if you like, but it's not going to stop anyone eating steak.

[Lorizael]

Well I reject the existence of a historical jesus. So what's the issue here?

You're certainly allowed to, but it sounds like you're doing it because you're an atheist rather than because that's what the evidence says. You say there's evidence Jesus didn't exist, and you're right, but there's also evidence he did exist. Absent decades of intense historical scholarship, I don't know why you feel justified in accepting some of that evidence but rejecting other bits of it.

[Lorizael]

Jesus, kentonio, will you stop making my posts before I do?