Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Was Jesus even born? [View all]cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)62. Do you even read your own sources?
Richard Dawkins wrote that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."
What historians have written peer-reviewed papers proving the existence of an historical jesus? I'd like to read it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
210 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I agree, so the question I am posing is was there a Jesus in the context of what
gopiscrap
Nov 2013
#2
That hardly qualifies as an "historical artifact." At best, it's supposition.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#47
Your first point is typical of much of early history. The scources for three of the Gospels are very
Leontius
Nov 2013
#107
I also often wonder why anyone thinks such biblical eyewitnesses could write...
Moonwalk
Nov 2013
#181
I would say that historians believe that all of the writings written about Jesus in the first
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#12
It's difficult to have a conversation when points of fact cannot be agreed upon.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#17
Seriously. How can there be meaningful discussion if basic facts cannot be agreed upon?
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#59
So if you "simply don't know", then you take his existence as a matter of faith and not fact.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#63
Jesus existance is not a fact. That is clear. I believe the bible that it says he was here.
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#65
So you agree with my initial reply which is that you take it on faith not fact.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#86
so if I say I believe in man made climate change because that is the consensus among scientists
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#89
I say you base your opinion on nothing more than an argument from authority.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#90
I have no problem agreeing with you. I agree that there is not written accounts of him during his
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#96
First off I already own part of the bbrooklyn bridge so you don't need to sell me anything.
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#136
Yes I do own some bricks that were apart of the bridge. And as for my belief I am allowed to
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#142
I defend your right to believe whatever you will. That's what being an American is about.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#146
I understand. You don't elieve in the virgin birth. It is something not easy to believe in. I have
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#149
Whhat do you want from me? I believe it. If you have a problem with it that is your problem not mine
hrmjustin
Nov 2013
#176
I don't have a problem with your faith. Just letting you know why i find it so easy to
stopbush
Nov 2013
#177
Well, I was hoping for a serious discussion, but your blind faith rather closes that door.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#179
No, the resurrection is implausible, because it is unknown, biologically
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2013
#36
Fair point. The Resurrection is implausible, while the existence of jesus is plausible.
cleanhippie
Nov 2013
#49
name me three published peer reviewed historians who say Jesus of Nazareth
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#54
peer reviewed historians who claim Jesus didn't exist are about as common as peer reviewed scientist
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#58
yeah because martian teapots are a real academic discipline like history, etc
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#111
it is evidence of the acceptance of his historical existence among even the most
arely staircase
Nov 2013
#72
Jesus may well have existed, a religious Jew and a revolutionary against Rome.
meti57b
Nov 2013
#173
I don't believe that there's any artifactual proof or any reference to Jesus that's dated to the...
Fridays Child
Nov 2013
#3
It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that we'll never really know. Like King Arthur or William
dimbear
Nov 2013
#8
Nope, there is nothing from the 1st century which supports a corporeal Christ
intaglio
Nov 2013
#143
Then it should be a simple task to identify it and establish how it wrote the Scriptures.
rug
Nov 2013
#166
"acknowledging such is a problem for your belief in the divinity of Jesus as portrayed"?
rug
Nov 2013
#93
Whoever came up with the phrase "Render unto Caesar" was real. But was it JC or Titus Flavius?
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2013
#31
Google it yourself. My response is my own and not dependent upon any previous DU post.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2013
#41
I don't need to. I read his thoroughly discredited crap in five threads in four forums.
rug
Nov 2013
#50
Don't be distracted by Joseph Atwill and the like, there are perfectly respectable scholars who
dimbear
Nov 2013
#43
That's an excellent site that should be visited by people making the argument against a corporeal
stopbush
Nov 2013
#175
Here's a musical take on your question, by Nashville singer-songwriter David Olney...
DreamGypsy
Nov 2013
#80
The only report from close to Bible times is that the family business was making farm implements,
dimbear
Nov 2013
#112
There are no contemporaneous writings stating that he existed. Duh.
Manifestor_of_Light
Nov 2013
#97
The burden is not on people who aren't aware of his existence, to disprove it.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#117
Why would someone write a fictitious account of a fictitious person four decades later?
rug
Nov 2013
#120
Still ignoring the one or the other billion adherents mutually exclusive faith issue huh?
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#139
Let's say there is none. That does not provide evidence of the necessary alternate explanation.
rug
Nov 2013
#152
You seem to have some fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#157
None is required, unless you're starting from a presuppositon that it is true.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#163
The premise that it must be true and thus disproven is irrational and begs the question. Sure.
AtheistCrusader
Nov 2013
#168
So the Buddha wrote nothing but a bunch of monks wrote down what they think they remembered
Leontius
Nov 2013
#193
That really was not the point I was making and I will not dispute your take on Buddhist
Leontius
Nov 2013
#195
And there's the harm to society that comes from the validation of magical thinking.
trotsky
Nov 2013
#188