Denying the Existence of Jesus

[the narrator]

Dan, it was good to see you at the FID conference over the weekend--though I'm saddened that we I wasn't able to talk with you, as I was hoping to ask you a few questions. The entire conference was an overall success I must say.

Based on your OP, I was expecting to find a group of apostates discussing the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really existed, with the most part, quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't.

Because I believe that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is pretty much undeniable, I was interested in how "the most part" of any group of people could be "quite confident" in denying his existence. Upon finding the thread I was a bit disappointed. Only two of the posters denied Jesus's existence. Two. That's at most 2/9 (less that one-third) of the posters on the board. And the arguments they had to offer were quite pathetic.

Even FauxNews can't spin that into a majority. Why start off the OP with such a claim? I just don't get it. Why do that?

[cion]

Even FauxNews can't spin that into a majority. Why start off the OP with such a claim? I just don't get it. Why do that?

Air time for advertising?

[thesometimesaint]

I think that Yeshua bar Joseph existed is well attested to. Whether that same person was Yeshua bar El is a matter of religion.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sheesh.

Based on your OP, I was expecting to find a group of apostates discussing the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth really existed, with the most part, quite confidently declaring that he probably didn't.

Because I believe that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is pretty much undeniable, I was interested in how "the most part" of any group of people could be "quite confident" in denying his existence. Upon finding the thread I was a bit disappointed. Only two of the posters denied Jesus's existence. Two. That's at most 2/9 (less that one-third) of the posters on the board. And the arguments they had to offer were quite pathetic.

DarthJ says that there were three. I thought there were three, too.

And three of nine? To repeat: At the time I wrote my post, I don't believe that there were nine distinct posters on that thread. Maybe there were. Those for whom this is an important issue are free to go there and tabulate their research. Some of the participants there posted irrelevant sacrilegious videos, etc. How do you count those? You decide. I don't care. Not even slightly.

I skimmed the thread, thought of the Mormon Times article that I'd just published, posted the note that opened this thread here, and thought of that other thread and that other board essentially no more. It is of no great relevance to me.

Why do you care so much about it? I don't.

Even FauxNews can't spin that into a majority.

Here's something that will send my fans on that board and elsewhere into yet another tizzy -- I have to provide them with red meat from time to time, lest they lose the will to live: I'm a political conservative, and I like Fox News. Just for the record. I also subscribe to National Review, the American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard, and I was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and William F. Buckley Jr. (all of whom I had the privilege of spending time with).

Why start off the OP with such a claim? I just don't get it. Why do that?

Because I'm dishonest.

Just ask my Malevolent Stalker.

Good grief. This thread isn't, and never was, about the precise ratio of disbelievers:believers:doubters in the historicity of Jesus on any specific thread on any specific board -- a ratio, incidentally, that (and this is very germane to your complaint) has changed rather dramatically since I launched this thread. It isn't about any board or thread at all. (Had I wanted it to be about a specific board or thread, I would have specifically identified that specific board or thread.) Yet four of you seem to think that my concern -- certainly it's yours -- is to talk about that specific board or thread. I just don't get it. Why do that?

[WalkerW]

Yeah, this is what I usually tell people, too. Usually when people reject the existence of Jesus on the basis that there is no near-contemporary evidence, they are completely ignoring Paul. If you accept the existence of a historical Paul and the authenticity of Galatians (as even most of the cranks do), then you have in the book of Galatians a very early witness to Jesus's existence-- written within about 20 years of Christ's reputed death date, and within the lifetime of not only James, "the Lord's brother," but also Peter.

I like what Gary Habermas wrote about the experiences of Paul and James:

"Contemporary critical scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul

[WalkerW]

Let me go ahead and get it out of the way:

I like Fox News.

Which is why...

I'm dishonest.

I'm sure you're a "racist, tea-bagging redneck" as well.

Now that the connection has been made between "Faux News" viewing and dishonesty, hopefully this will be the end of it.

[WalkerW]

I was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and William F. Buckley Jr.

I hope you still are a huge fan. My three would be Friedman, Hayek, and Sowell. But that is for a different topic of conversation.

[the narrator]

Sheesh.

DarthJ says that there were three. I thought there were three, too.

And three of nine? To repeat: At the time I wrote my post, I don't believe that there were nine distinct posters on that thread. Maybe there were. Those for whom this is an important issue are free to go there and tabulate their research. Some of the participants there posted irrelevant sacrilegious videos, etc. How do you count those? You decide. I don't care. Not even slightly.

I skimmed the thread, thought of the Mormon Times article that I'd just published, posted the note that opened this thread here, and thought of that other thread and that other board essentially no more. It is of no great relevance to me.

Why do you care so much about it? I don't.

Here's something that will send my fans on that board and elsewhere into yet another tizzy -- I have to provide them with red meat from time to time, lest they lose the will to live: I'm a political conservative, and I like Fox News. Just for the record. I also subscribe to National Review, the American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard, and I was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and William F. Buckley Jr. (all of whom I had the privilege of spending time with).

Because I'm dishonest.

Just ask my Malevolent Stalker.

Good grief. This thread isn't, and never was, about the precise ratio of disbelievers:believers:doubters in the historicity of Jesus on any specific thread on any specific board -- a ratio, incidentally, that (and this is very germane to your complaint) has changed rather dramatically since I launched this thread. It isn't about any board or thread at all. (Had I wanted it to be about a specific board or thread, I would have specifically identified that specific board or thread.) Yet four of you seem to think that my concern -- certainly it's yours -- is to talk about that specific board or thread. I just don't get it. Why do that?

Dan,

When I read your OP, I didn't even think you were referring to the MD board because it lacked the usually definite articles and pejoratives that both boards typically use when referring to the other. Knowing no other specific boards that you peruse, I only went there to see if that was the board you were referring to. My "complaint" has nothing to do with your relationship to other boards. Rather, I'm only interested in your rhetorical style of imaginatively creating an other/enemy to which you are responding to.

I trust that you were not counting the # of posters when you skimmed over that thread. My count of 9 distinct posters is counting up to the point that a second poster confidently declaring a denial of Jesus's existence enters the scene. If there weren't even 9 distinct posters when you made your OP, then there was only one person denying Jesus's existence when you made your post--hardly "the most part." After the highest possible ratio of 2:7 (or 2 of 9) posters denying the existence of the person of Jesus, the ration of deniers to supporters actually decreases.

Again, I don't think the MD board is your concern. Rather it seems that your concern was to use a generic (and imagined?) majority of "group of apostates" who "for the most part" are "quite confident" in denying the existence of the person of Jesus, which you can then triumphantly call "plain nonsense." All the while using this (imagined?) "provocation" as justification for the OP.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind conjuring up the imaginary "provocation."

Perhaps I should just give you the benefit of the doubt that your inclination to see the worst of posters at the MD board (which I, admittedly, do for both the MAD and MD boards) predisposed you to accidentally exaggerate what was actually going on in the thread which provoked you. I make the same silly mistakes all of the time.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I would like to see such a debate over here someday.

Rather than debating Jesus' existence and/or messiahship,

I would much rather discuss the earliest, most reliable

evidence for:

1. the physical presence of Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago

2. the presence and activities of the apostles

3. the existence of Christianity as a distinct religion

4. the existence of Christian congregations/worshipers

Perhaps 99.9% of the original evidence, from before the

time of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, has long

since disappeared from the face of the earth -- but I'd

really like to see some MORE than just endless repetitions

of Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus.

I'd like to see some physical evidence for a change.

Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

I have a formal statement to make, and then I'll respond to questions from the floor:

My

[Bill Hamblin]

There is no rational reason to doubt that Jesus lived.

The real question is: has he risen.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is rational reason to doubt that Jesus lived.

The real question is: has he risen.

Did you intend to write "There is no rational reason to doubt that Jesus lived"?

In any event, I'll thank you to take your irrelevant blatherings about Jesus to some other thread.

This one, apparently, is to be about me. Its title was merely a ruse.

[the narrator]

You're reading far, far too much into my opening post.

Why?

Because I was expecting something that resembled what you were describing, but was disappointed to not find it.

Are you so much in thrall to what my critics say about me, and to the caricature that they've created of me?

Not at all. I actually find you quite likable in person, and am at times at a loss of reconciling the personable Dan and the online version.

I find attempted mind-reading like that above unutterably boring.

So do I, but it was worth a shot.

You're wrong. Such considerations played utterly no role in my opening post -- I was, as I've said several times now, really just interested in the claim, not infrequently encountered in some circles, that Jesus didn't exist -- but I don't really care that much if you prefer to read me in the way that you do. Be my guest.

Then why point to an imaginary thread as your "provocation"? That's what I don't get.

Naah. Just go on assuming that your mind-reading skills are better than they are. What can that possibly hurt?

I never assumed they were anything. I'm just trying to figure out where your initial claim came in your OP came from. It certainly wasn't based on the reality of the thread you were referring to. You should go back to it and read it again. Do you really believe that your OP accurately describes that thread?

The one that folks like Liz and Runtu and Trevor and Nightingale and Don Bradley and others there (including Shades himself, who has twice been a guest in my living room) could presumably confirm from personal experience?

I don't believe that I said that such a predisposition fell on everyone on that board. If I did, then I misspoke (mistyped?). Nor do I believe that a predisposition necessarily causes one to see things in a particular way. If you have no predisposition to how you tread the MD board, then perhaps I simply cast my own predisposition of that board onto you. (I, for one, am predisposed to think that most of the chatter on the MD board is the product of ignorant and self-absorbed amateurs--there are exceptions of course).

Let me repeat it for you, one last time: With regard to this issue, that board and its denizens are of no particular interest to me. I don't care about them. I feel no animosity toward them, nor do I have any sense of triumph over them. I never did. You've conjured all this up out of your own imagination.

You are a better man than me, as you have pretty much described me.

I don't get it. Why do this? Why the silly pop psychologizing?

Just trying to understand the basis for your OP. Was it silly? Perhaps. Pop psychology? Well now that's giving me way too much credit.

[Bill Hamblin]

Did you intend to write "There is no rational reason to doubt that Jesus lived"?

In any event, I'll thank you to take your irrelevant blatherings about Jesus to some other thread.

This one, apparently, is to be about me. Its title was merely a ruse.

Already changed before you responded. Hence you look petty while I look merely incompetent.

[Daniel Peterson]

Already changed before you responded. Hence you look petty while I look merely incompetent.

I've tried to change the name of this thread to something like "Daniel Peterson: Why is He So Obsessed with Triumph over the Imaginary Demonized 'Other?'" but, so far as I can see, there's no way to change the title of a thread once it's been launched. Drat. So I'm giving you a run for your money in the Incompetence Department. But I think I'm far ahead in the Object of Weird Fantasies Department. And I'm not just talking about this thread. I mean, when you factor the Stalker in, I've got you beaten by several trillion parsecs. Despair and die, Hamblin.

[the narrator]

I've tried to change the name of this thread to something like "Daniel Peterson: Why is He So Obsessed with Triumph over the Imaginary Demonized 'Other?'" but, so far as I can see, there's no way to change the title of a thread once it's been launched. Drat. So I'm giving you a run for your money in the Incompetence Department. But I think I'm far ahead in the Object of Weird Fantasies Department. And I'm not just talking about this thread. I mean, when you factor the Stalker in, I've got you beaten by several trillion parsecs. Despair and die, Hamblin.

Good idea.

[Uncle Dale]

...petty...incompetent.

Let him who is the greatest among you be the servant of all --

for to be last in the world, is to be first in the Kingdom of Heaven.

But, getting back to the honest and sincere rabbi my wife knows;

is that rabbi truly irrational, because of doubts concerning the

historicity of Jesus?

Has there never been a rational person on the face of this planet

who has seriously entertained such doubts?

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

I've tried to change the name of this thread to something like "Daniel Peterson: Why is He So Obsessed with Triumph over the Imaginary Demonized 'Other?'" but, so far as I can see, there's no way to change the title of a thread once it's been launched. Drat. So I'm giving you a run for your money in the Incompetence Department. But I think I'm far ahead in the Object of Weird Fantasies Department. And I'm not just talking about this thread. I mean, when you factor the Stalker in, I've got you beaten by several trillion parsecs. Despair and die, Hamblin.

I gave up trying to keep up with you when I was three. At that time you were walking while I was still crawling.

By the way, might I suggest an investment in Afghanistan minerals? I've got a Nigerian broker I could put you in touch with!

[Ceeboo]

The real question is: has he risen.

That does indeed seem to be THE question! (Ceeboo says YES!!!!!!!! )

Anyhooo, the way this thread has evolved, given the OP, is rather bizarre (just my opinion)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Bill Hamblin]

Let him who is the greatest among you be the servant of all --

for to be last in the world, is to be first in the Kingdom of Heaven.

But, getting back to the honest and sincere rabbi my wife knows;

is that rabbi truly irrational, because of doubts concerning the

historicity of Jesus?

Has there never been a rational person on the face of this planet

who has seriously entertained such doubts?

UD

I'm sure there are rational people who believe such things. Just not for any rational reason.

[Bill Hamblin]

Good idea.

You first.

[Uncle Dale]

I'm sure there are rational people who believe such things. Just not for any rational reason.

Let's take this as a test case. Suppose the rabbi tells me,

"The Mishna and Talmud speak of him, but I cannot trust any

of this stuff about his being the son of Panthera the Roman.

Provide me with a more reliable source than the synagogue bookshelf."

Where would you begin -- not to testify of your own spiritual

experience, but to provide the doubting rabbi with an initial

"rational" path of inquiry.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Because I was expecting something that resembled what you were describing, but was disappointed to not find it.

Yeah. You shouldn't have been so fixated on the 50.000001% figure. A more relaxed posture of allowing a variation of plus or minus 0.07 would have left you in better shape.

Not at all. I actually find you quite likable in person, and am at times at a loss of reconciling the personable Dan and the online version.

You should consider the possibility that you simply find my in-person person harder to misunderstand than my on-line persona. Because, regarding the latter -- certainly in this instance -- you're so far wrong as to be something of a prodigy of nature.

Then why point to an imaginary thread as your "provocation"? That's what I don't get.

You've lost me. What "imaginary thread"?

I'm just trying to figure out where your initial claim came in your OP came from.

It came from a visit to Capernaum a few weeks ago. I've been there several times, and the ruins of "Peter's house" continue to impress me.

It certainly wasn't based on the reality of the thread you were referring to.

Quite so. The proximate reading that influenced the opening post was something by Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. I find him quite a reliable guide to the Holy Land. (I'm referring to his book from Oxford.)

You should go back to it and read it again.

The book? Yes. I certainly will.

The thread? Why? Has anything new appeared there? I'm really not interested in it.

Do you really believe that your OP accurately describes that thread?

Sufficiently for my purposes (which had nothing to do with that thread), yes. See my formal statement, above.

[Daniel Peterson]

Anyhooo, the way this thread has evolved, given the OP, is rather bizarre (just my opinion)

Not yours alone. Trust me.

[WalkerW]

Despair and die, Hamblin

I'm going to place them in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death. - Dr. Evil