Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 5 (Objections)

The fifth and final episode in a series examining the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Jeffery Jay Lowder's article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
Doug Shaver's article: http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Christ
• historicity
• historical
• person
• man
• figure
• character
• myth
• imaginary
• existed
• existence
• real
• fake
• skepticism
• criticism
• bible
• extra-biblical
• non-biblical
• Josephus
• Tacitus
• Suetonius
• accounts
• evidence

[MyPisceanNature]

I tried to point out there is very little definitive evidence for Jesus's existence to my cousin and my brother-in-law. It ended with my cousin insisting there are Roman records of his trial and execution (which I tried to point out is not the case), and my brother-in-law laughing and saying he stopped listening when I said Jesus was fake (which of course I did not say at all).

[TaylorX04]

@MyPisceanNature Interesting. I heard the claims about Roman records too, even some that were asserted to have been the personal records from Pontius Pilate, but on further pressing the issue, I found that these people had simply heard it through the grapevine, not having done any actual research into it.

[HConstantine]

So you really think you know more than Charlesworth? That is the dunning-Kruger effect in action.

By the way, I am an Atheist (as are most of the NT experts I''ve worked with), a historian, and a NT specialist..

[TaylorX04]

@HConstantine "So you really think you know more than Charlesworth?" - This is the dumbest question I've been asked on these videos. Do I think I know more than a New Testament scholar? Of course not, but is it possible that he could jump to hasty conclusions? Certainly. I get sick of hearing this character assassination crap from "experts" who don't like the opinions of some of their colleagues. I really don't give a shit what x thinks, it's the evidence that matters.

[HConstantine]

The irrefutable evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the fact that James is mentioned by Josephus. It would also be difficult to explain the Gospels without Jesus. It is clear that the author of Mark lacked the literary sophistication to have fabricated a novel. It is also clear that Paul thought Jesus was a historical person, and knew people who knew him, including his relatives.

No one--except perhaps some lunatic--has ever doubted the historicity of Socrates.

[TaylorX04]

@HConstantine The Josephus reference to James is "irrefutable"? I highly disagree. Did you watch my discussion of it in this series? It makes far more sense that James was the brother of "Jesus bar Damneus". Regardless, I am leaning more towards the historicity of Jesus (whatever Jesus that was), though not because of any of these weak-salt extrabiblical claims made by apologists. The amount we know about James, as explained by Robert Eisenman, has led me to rethink things.

[Huemunkynde]

Have you considered examining the historians who were absolutely contemporary with Jesus? Non of them mention Jesus or any of the events - earthquakes, Zombies, etc... I believe those contemporary historians have nothing to say...

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@MyPisceanNature ya, how awesome is that, right? Kind of frustrating.. But it shows you how dumb your relatives really are, right??? Religion is great for that.. Feel proud for knowing you've taken the time to examine evidence and they are basing their entire life's philosophy off of hear-say and exaggeration.

When I told my mom I thought Jesus might not ever have existed, she said "That's so stupid! The whole calender system was arranged around his birthday!!!!" LOL!!! Riiiiight.... LOL!!!

[HimesInu]

@HConstantine Have you ever seen Black Hawk Down? The American at the beginning of the movie was actually three different people in real life. If you didn't know this before hand, you would assume that he was only one person. Could it be possible that Jesus of history was multiple people played by one person in the Bible? Not only that, but who's to say that James was an actual person in that time?

[macroman52]

@HConstantine Re Mark: contrary to your assertion the Gospel of Mark shows definitely that whoever wrote had literary ability. It abounds with clever tricks of comnposition, irony and surprise, symbolism.

[sonicsoundwaveus]

A fingerprint??? He feeds 5,000 people, resurrected the dead, heals the blind,& walks on water! & nobody speaks up for him at his trial?? Not even lazarus!!

[MyPisceanNature]

@TaylorX04 I was reasonably certain that was the case. I did link both of them to each video in this series, but I doubt seriously they will bother to watch it.

[mp478070]

If this were a trial, I'd say you've made avgood circumstantial case. And since verdicts can be rendered based on circumstantial evidence alone, I think you have proven that there was no historical Jesus. 

[mardastheEitheist]

@LiberalsAndChurls

That's extremely easy. As Paul already has stated, there had to be executed one to forgive sins of the original sin. It was theologically necessary to make a sacrifice to have to offer something to converts. Much more than that was not, what paul had said, he just made this theological point, without historical references. Therefore it can be possible, that there only was a theological jesus of paul, invented for religion creation.