About 15 years or so. But let’s not forget the millions and millions of people who claim to have seen and talked with Jesus since he was “resurrected” 2000 years ago. Nero doesn’t even come close.
So you define Jesus as a metaphor, and then confidently announce that he obviously didn’t exist.
If I define Jesus as a historical person of which we know very little but who inspired a body of myths and legends, I can confidently announce that Jesus existed.
I fail to see how any of this adds value to our understanding of what really happened.
3 Likes
Add the Ad Hominem Fallacy to the list of logic fallacies you apparently don’t understand. (Now that is a lack of self-awareness!)
So now you confuse credentialism and peer-review. (Academic posts at major universities are achieved through a history of peer-reviewed publishing. That’s not “credentialism.”)
Incredible. Byer’s Point™ reached yet again. (E-notation required.)
1 Like
In real subjects peer-reviewed papers advance human knowledge in some way. We’ve had so-called Bible scholars around for centuries and centuries. How have they advanced human knowledge at all? They haven’t, it’s a trivial pursuit that yields nothing but confusion. Don’t try to pretend that religious studies is on the same level with real subjects, where peer-review really matters. We both know it isn’t.
1 Like
That’s wrong. We know absolutely nothing about any man Jesus. Not a little, nothing.
Nothing happened and assuming it did spoils an otherwise good story. The truths people could receive from the Bible and the gospel stories are hidden from them. These stories embody a well-defined tradition of discussion that formed the Judaism to which the gospels belong.
1 Like
So how many subjects have you just relegated to “not real” because they do not add to the total sum of knowledge?
History
Languages
Sociology
Ethics
Law
Social Work
Geography
Library Science
Education
Anthropology?
I suggest that the interaction of these topics at other with “real” subject ALSO adds to the sum of human knowledge.
More whataboutism, nit-picking, desperation, straw manning, distraction and semantics. Where did I say, “sum total?” I said advance knowledge in SOME WAY. So you’re saying that the study of anthropology doesn’t advance knowledge? Try sticking to the subject at hand.
1 Like
Let’s go back to your original comment:
Those millions of claimants didn’t see Jesus during his lifetime (including any suggested resurrection to ascension period) so could not have contributed to contemporary documentation.
That’s a goalpost move worthy of Kent Hovind or Walter ReMine. It is more likely to repulse than convince. I don’t know what you’re trying to do, but unless it’s to convince people that the only way to argue against a historical Jesus is evasively, you’re failing.
3 Likes
AND I repeat:
Why shouldn’t religious studies be part of that?
First of all the whole argument is really beside the point since the Jesus of the gospels never existed. Hopefully we can at least agree on that. Yet so-called scholars who should know better are still cranking out books and having conferences that try to separate the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” I wonder how many of these books you guys have bought. Bart Ehrman and others make a lot of money portraying their toy Jesus however they wish: he was a political revolutionary, a faith healer, a rabbi, a wandering wonder worker, a hippie peace nick, a teacher - Jesus can be portrayed any way a writer wants and nobody can dispute them because there isn’t a shred of evidence at all for any kind of historical Jesus.
It’s time for this nonsense to stop and go away forever. The ancients would be appalled at such literal mindedness and you guys should be ashamed of it. The contemporary readers and hearers of the gospels, which didn’t appear until the mid to late Second Century, would not have interpreted Jesus, David or Abraham as historical figures but as metaphors that embodied some well established messianic traditions. I spent several years studying the Bible and the literature that spawned it. People like you and so-called scholars just ruin good stories for everybody else. That’s my main problem.
Also many people have complained to me that they don’t know how to deal with pushy amateur evangelists when they are confronted by them at work, at school, at the gym, on the street, in the line at the grocery store - they’re everywhere. Growing up in a Jewish family in which nobody, none of us believe or have believed Jesus was a real person I always knew how to deal with pushy Christians. Just tell them you’re quite sure no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed. This immediately cuts the legs off their arguments and makes them disappear pretty quick. But not you guys. Nope you could have never been fooled into believing in and worshiping someone who never existed. Well yes, yes you were. Finally this Jesus story has been the root cause of much of the anti-Semitism in the world. Any notion of a human Jesus needs to just die and go away forever. Just let it go you guys.
1 Like
Because of the way it’s taught and who teaches it. It’s akin to teaching the gospel of intelligent design magic in an evolutionary biology course. Would you support that Mr. Biostatistician?
I would fully support it in a class where knowledge of religion - and especially the history of religion - is relevant. I think that might apply to any of the subjects in my list (some more arguable than others).
This discussion has turned into a debate located in the Theatre of the Absurd. In it we have some great examples of literal minds in all of their absurdity. My comment on post resurrection appearances parodies the absolute nonsense of the arguments made by others here. And people talk about things going over MY head.
Pretty sure it started out that way. 
6 Likes
I took some of those classes, Comparative Religion, The Emergent Church in Antiquity, and they were illuminating. However investigating religion too closely usually leads to infidelity. In fact just learning New Testament Greek can often do that. The average unbeliever, and I think I know him or her pretty well, just doesn’t give a hoot about religion. So religion classes are designed for people looking for a Divinity degree or some such thing which is about as useful as teats on a hog. This is why the Church protects their priests so fervently. They know they don’t have any useful skills and their degree proves nothing. I went to school to prove to prospective employers I’m disciplined and can be trained. Like if an English major gets fired they can simply go into HR or journalism or some other field. Not so with our so-called holy men.
I agree. Jesus as protrayed in the gospels is mythical.
That doesn’t mean the stories weren’t based on a real person, as is the case for Davy Crockett, Alice, Blackbeard, Washington, Mohammad, Pocahontas, Imhotep, Kit Carson, and many others.
You are claiming they aren’t based on a real person. But you don’t, and can’t know that, any more than we can know that about many other romanticised figures of ancient history.
No, no, I wasn’t.
3 Likes
You mean this comment?
Either (i) you’re exaggerating to an absurd extent, (ii) or you weren’t really talking about post-resurrection appearances, but about believers over the last two millennia, and are trying a reverse ferret, or (iii) you’re now claiming your comment was not a serious point but a parody.
None would do much for your dwindling credibility.
3 Likes
Agreed, that is (often) the purpose of an undergraduate degree.
Not so with our so-called holy men.
Not so fast - Many of these persons, and especially in smaller churches, hold another job as their primary income.
It’s useful, (but not always required) if you plan to work as a minister.
I agree (it’s obvious) there can be deep problems within churches as institutions. I don’t think it is the study of religion that causes these problems.
Sounds like a slippery slope?
So stories that first appeared in the late Second Century are based on a real person who lived and died in the early First Century. Do you want to explain how that is possible? You are a really a person with a deeply held faith in Jesus, aren’t you now? That is a kind of faith fundamentalist Christians can only wish they had. Please tell us what part of the gospel story is based on a real person. A voice from heaven perhaps? The casting out of demons maybe? How about this trial and crucifixion which is clearly attested to by, uh… no one? Name it and claim it. What part of the story is about an actual person?
1 Like