![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/Jesus50.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement on 6-22-17<\/a>: \u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added in the combox<\/a>: \u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d<\/span> I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn\u2019t replied, or didn\u2019t inform me that he did. Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his post,\u00a0\u201c25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 2)\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(6-22-18; update of a post originally from 10-1-14), Bob stated (the high irony in relation to his post title being almost unbearable to endure): \u201c[T]he evidence for the very\u00a0<\/span>existence<\/em>\u00a0of Jesus is paltry . . .\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob also wrote elsewhere<\/a> on 6-11-14: \u201c[T]he techniques Christian apologists use to conclude that the Christ story is historical would also lead historians to a similar conclusion about Superman.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n On 12-9-11, Bob opined in his post, \u201cJesus and Santa: a Parable on How We Dismiss Evidence\u201d<\/a> (reprinted and modified on 12-14-13, just in time for Christmas):<\/p>\n I can\u2019t prove Santa doesn\u2019t exist. Nor can I disprove leprechauns,\u00a0Russell\u2019s Flying Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or God. The thoughtful person goes where the evidence points rather than accepting only the evidence that supports his preconception.\u00a0<\/span>[he then cites a bumper sticker for his famous end-quotation: \u201cJesus is Santa Claus for adults.\u201d<\/em><\/span>]<\/p>\n Reiterating on 12-8-17<\/a>, Bob in his infinite wisdom advises us: \u201cBe careful about dismissing the existence of Santa, because that reasoning may demand that you dismiss Jesus as well.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And again, on 5-26-14<\/a>:<\/p>\n Jesus\u00a0could\u00a0<\/em>appear to you, but he doesn\u2019t. He appeared to Paul after he died, so it\u2019s not like he hasn\u2019t done it before. He could appear to give you advice for a tough decision, give you comfort in person like a friend would, or just assure you that he really exists. He doesn\u2019t. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?\u00a0<\/em>Jesus is imaginary.<\/span><\/p>\n He clarified the above remark on 8-20-18<\/a>:\u00a0What I meant was, \u201cJesus\u00a0as a god who could do magical things, like appear to people,<\/b>\u00a0is imaginary.\u201d Since the Christ Myth theory is something I don\u2019t talk about, the nuance of Jesus as a man vs. Jesus as a god isn\u2019t something I usually worry about.<\/span><\/p>\n And on 3-5-14<\/a>:\u00a0 \u201cOr maybe Jesus never existed. \u201c<\/span><\/p>\n On 8-17-18<\/a> Bob made a very revealing comment:<\/p>\n I was concerned about shrillness in the Bart Ehrman camp, the \u201cOf\u00a0course<\/i>\u00a0Jesus existed, and anyone who says otherwise is a dolt!\u201d camp. . . .\u00a0a reasonable research question should be, \u201cHow do you know Jesus isn\u2019t 100% fiction?\u201d I\u2019d put the emphases on the \u201cHow do you\u00a0know<\/i>?\u201d I\u2019m happy with a Christian scholar saying that Jesus 70% existed or even 90% existed, but the popular attitude seems to be, \u201cOh, please. Only a hack would even dream to suggest that Jesus didn\u2019t exist as a real person.\u201d That position may be embarrassing 20 years from now, if trends continue.<\/span><\/p>\n And on 8-16-18<\/a>:<\/p>\n Ehrman seems to have made this a big deal such that he\u2019d have an embarrassing time walking back his position, and I don\u2019t know why. Does he just have a thing against Price or Carrier? . . . Your \u201cHow do you know it\u2019s not 100% fiction?\u201d is a nice way of focusing the question. Popular Christian apologists try to lampoon the idea, but methinks they doth protest too much.<\/span><\/p>\n And yet another on 8-16-18<\/a>:<\/p>\n The big deal in my mind is that when an atheist says, \u201cAnyway, Jesus didn\u2019t even exist,\u201d they can jump on that with a fairly reasonable argument, citing a broad consensus and Bart Ehrman as an atheist scholar who agrees with them. Avoiding the Jesus myth claim keeps things a little more on track, but if someone wants to jump into that fight, I\u2019ll happily watch. Greg G and others have made a great defense of mythicism, for example.<\/span><\/p>\n And another<\/a> and another<\/a>\u00a0and a third<\/a> on the same day:<\/p>\n The story I\u2019ve heard is that Moses mythicism was in the same camp in the fairly recent past, but it\u2019s held as a very plausible view now, if not the consensus of scholars. The anti-Jesus mythicists might want to focus on the argument and tone down their shrillness just in case posterity turns against them as well.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not a mythicist. But since when did inconvenient facts get in the way of the Armstrong juggernaut?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t deny that Jesus existed.<\/span><\/p>\n And on 8-19-18<\/a>:\u00a0Y\u2019know, if I thought Jesus never existed, I\u2019d probably say something like, oh I dunno, maybe \u201cJesus never existed.\u201d Or, if you really, really cared so much about what I think, you could just ask me.\u00a0What a moron.\u00a0Reading others\u2019 comments have made me consider the Christ Myth theory more favorably, but (as I tried to explain to you) it is not useful to me. So it\u2019s me following the interesting ideas of the commenters, not vice versa.<\/span><\/p>\n And on 8-20-18<\/a>:\u00a0I wonder if some of the strongest evidence for Jesus is just that \u201cwell,\u00a0some\u00a0<\/i>dude could easily have been there at the beginning\u201d is the null hypothesis.<\/span><\/p>\n And again on 8-20-18<\/a>:\u00a0And we don\u2019t know when the \u201cevents\u201d took place. Yes, the gospels sort of place them in history (Herod vs. Quirinius for the birth and Pilate for the death), but that\u2019s just what they say. If there was a real Jesus, who knows when he was actually born?<\/span><\/p>\n Normally, I simply ignore the belief that is called \u201cJesus mythicism\u201d<\/a> as intellectual suicide and outlandishly absurd and unworthy of further attention. In my opinion (and not just mine, but the vast majority<\/em> of historians), anyone who holds to this nonsense is likely to be incapable of rational discussion about theology (or history or philosophy). But since this is a series (and since more and more people believe this hogwash), I\u2019ll make an exception<\/em> to my rule. I\u2019ve collected a lot of scholarly resources<\/a> that abundantly refute this historiographically ridiculous position, so I\u2019ll list some and quote from some, too:<\/p>\n Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ<\/a>\u00a0(Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>)<\/p>\n \u201cYou Can\u2019t Trust the Gospels. They\u2019re Unreliable\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Paul Copan)<\/p>\n The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity<\/a>\u00a0(R. T. France)<\/p>\n Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(book by Maurice Goguel, 1926)<\/p>\n A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus<\/a>\u00a0[G. A. Wells]\u00a0(Gary R. Habermas, 2000)<\/p>\n Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus.\u00a0 Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known.\u00a0 In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.<\/p>\n Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus.\u00a0 For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, \u201cBy no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.\u201d\u00a0[i]<\/a><\/p>\n Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an \u201cextreme view.\u201d\u00a0 He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: \u201cif we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus\u2019 existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.\u201d\u00a0 Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: \u201cmodern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.\u201d\u00a0 These positions have been \u201cannihilated\u201d by the best scholars because the critics \u201chave not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.\u201d\u00a0[ii]<\/a><\/p>\n Digressing to a personal story, a potential publisher once asked me to contact a reviewer.\u00a0 An influential New Testament scholar at a secular university, he had voted to publish my manuscript, but\u00a0only<\/u>\u00a0if I deleted the section dealing with Well\u2019s hypotheses.\u00a0 He said that Well\u2019s suppositions were virtually devoid of serious historical content.\u00a0 He only relented after I convinced him that Wells still had some popular appeal.<\/p>\n Wells is aware of these attitudes towards his works.\u00a0 He acknowledges that \u201cnearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus\u2019 historicity as ridiculous.\u201d\u00a0[iii]<\/a>\u00a0 He adds, \u201cthe view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected.\u201d\u00a0[iv]<\/a>\u00a0 He concludes the matter: \u201cserious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact\u201d (HEJ 223).\u00a0 Even Michael Martin, one of Wells\u2019 few scholarly supporters, draws the rather restrained conclusion that \u201cWells\u2019 thesis is controversial and not widely accepted . . . .\u201d\u00a0[v]<\/a><\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/p>\n Wells\u2019 treatment of the many nonbiblical references to Jesus is also quite problematic.\u00a0 He downplays those presenting difficulties for his position (Thallus, Tacitus), and suggests late dates for others, again in contrast to the wide majority of scholars (Thallus [perhaps second century AD!], Polycarp [135 AD!], Papias [140 AD]).\u00a0 Yet, he provides few reasons why these dates should be preferred (DJE, 10-15, 78, 139; HEJ, 15-18).<\/p>\n The most important problem for Wells\u2019 treatment is Josephus\u2019 testimony.\u00a0 In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning\u00a0both<\/u>\u00a0of Josephus\u2019 references to Jesus.\u00a0 Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also \u201cwidely admitted\u201d by scholars (HEJ, 18; DJE, 10-11).\u00a0 But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.<\/p>\n While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus\u2019 longer statement in\u00a0Antiquities<\/u>\u00a018:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus.\u00a0 Princeton Seminary\u2019s James Charlesworth strongly concludes: \u201cWe can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus.\u201d\u00a0[xi]<\/a>\u00a0 John Drane adds that \u201cmost scholars have no doubts about the authenticity\u201dof the passage\u2019s nucleus.\u00a0[xii]<\/a>\u00a0 Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus\u2019 statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate.\u00a0 It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells\u2019 dating.<\/p>\n Josephus\u2019 second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities<\/u>\u00a020:9).\u00a0 This also hurts Well\u2019s thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles.\u00a0[xiii]<\/a>\u00a0 In spite of Wells\u2019 dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees\u2013HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, \u201cFew scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage.\u201d\u00a0[xiv]<\/a><\/p>\n Thus it is no wonder that Wells would dearly like to squelch Josephus\u2019 two references to Jesus.\u00a0 Both clearly place Jesus in a specific first century context connected with the apostles and Pilate, cannot be derived from the gospels on Wells\u2019 dating, and come from a non-Christian.\u00a0 Wells even notes that such independent data would be of \u201cgreat value\u201d (DJE, 14).\u00a0 So it is exceptionally instructive, not just that Wells dismisses both, but that he clearly wishes his readers to think that contemporary scholarship is firmly on his side when it very clearly is nowhere close.\u00a0 Charlesworth specifically refers to Wells\u2019 treatment of Josephus, saying that, \u201cMany solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.\u201d\u00a0[xv]<\/a><\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/p>\n Why do scholars reject Wells\u2019 thesis?\u00a0 Because it cuts out Christianity\u2019s heart and even critics refuse to face this (DJE, 205)?\u00a0 I have argued that there is another reason.\u00a0 One does not impress scholars by maintaining a thesis at all costs, consistently resorting to extraordinary means to overlook any bit of data that would disprove one\u2019s view.\u00a0 Even ally Martin realizes that Wells\u2019 arguments may sometimes seem \u201cad hoc and arbitrary.\u201d\u00a0[xviii]<\/a><\/p>\n But at several points, this is clearly what Wells does.\u00a0 He often admits that a natural textual reading devastates his theories.\u00a0 Then he dismisses every historical reference linking Jesus to the first century, making some bizarre moves in the process.\u00a0 This most obviously occurs in his treatments of James, Jesus\u2019 disciples, and Josephus.\u00a0 Along with dating the gospels decades later than almost everyone, these and other factors combine to produce the sense of ad hoc argumentation.\u00a0 But it all seriously undermines his system, as well as eroding his credibility.<\/p>\n Wells appears to declare virtually anything rather than admitting Jesus\u2019 historicity.\u00a0 Yet, one by one, his house of cards collapses.\u00a0 This is precisely why the vast majority of scholars reject Well\u2019s claims: he fails to deal adequately with the historical data.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels\u00a0<\/a>(Gary R. Habermas, 2005)<\/p>\n [A]pproximately one-and-a-half dozen non-Christian, extrabiblical sources confirm many details from Jesus\u2019 life and teachings as found in the Gospels.8<\/sup>\u00a0Early Christians such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp provide even more confirmation, writing just 10 years or less after the completion of the New Testament.9<\/sup>\u00a0Archaeological sources do not contribute as much corroboration in New Testament studies as they do in Old Testament studies, but there are a number of indications that, when the details can be checked, the New Testament is often confirmed.10<\/sup><\/p>\n There are a number of pieces of evidence that, especially when taken together, confirm the traditional picture regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. This is not to say that all the pertinent questions have been answered;11<\/sup>\u00a0but the available evidence from a variety of angles confirms the strong foundation on which we can base the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Qumran Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels<\/a>\u00a0(Larry W. Hurtado, 1968)<\/p>\n The Historicity of Jesus Christ<\/a>\u00a0(Wayne Jackson)<\/p>\n [T]he Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord\u2019s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus\u2019 existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after his mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.<\/p>\n Respected scholar, the late Bruce Metzger of Princeton, has commented upon this appellation:<\/p>\n The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera (1965, 76).<\/p>\n The Talmud also refers to Jesus\u2019 miracles as \u201cmagic,\u201d and records that he claimed to be God. It further mentions his execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus. . . .<\/p>\n Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst 1897, 180-189).<\/p>\n Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His\u00a0True Discourse<\/em>\u00a0(ca. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew, he announced himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ\u2019s own people killed him, and that his resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.<\/p>\n Lucian of Samosata (ca. A.D. 115-200) was called \u201cthe Voltaire of Grecian literature.\u201d He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known \u201csophist\u201d who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.<\/p>\n Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books,\u00a0Life of Pythagoras<\/em>, he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus\u2019 existence and power.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 A.D.\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0(Glenn Miller, 1996)<\/p>\n Did Jesus Exist? Books for Refuting the Jesus Myth<\/a>\u00a0(Christopher Price)<\/p>\n Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?: A Thorough Review of the\u00a0Testimonium Flavianum<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Christopher Price, 2003)<\/p>\n Scholarly Opinions on the Jesus Myth<\/a>\u00a0(Christopher Price, 2003)<\/p>\n I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.\u00a0 Here are some examples.<\/p>\n In his book,\u00a0I Believe in the Historical Jesus<\/i>, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few \u201cauthorities\u201d to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published.<\/p>\n Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic.\u00a0 And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels.<\/p>\n In his book\u00a0Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review of the Gospels,<\/i>\u00a0Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.<\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/p>\n Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in\u00a0Jesus and the Word<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n ***<\/p>\n Someone informed Bob of this paper. His response was as follows:<\/p>\n I can\u2019t imagine I\u2019m missing much by not reading it.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n Why read it? He has no credibility. Posts like that are the equivalent of The National Inquirer<\/em> or Weekly World News<\/em>.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t read enough to have an informed opinion, so no, I\u2019m not a mythicist.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sympathetic to the mythicists\u2019 arguments, and I own the relevant books by Carrier and Price, but I haven\u2019t read them. As a result, I don\u2019t want\/need to engage with those arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n For my purposes (showing the foolishness of Christianity), mythicism isn\u2019t a useful tool. I\u2019m sure that if I read those books, I\u2019d have yet more information that\u00a0would\u00a0<\/i>be useful, but the main argument is just a tangent. Getting into that morass simply allows the Christian to say, \u201cWell, Bart Ehrman says you\u2019re wrong, so whaddya gotta say about that??\u201d and so on.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n Bob appears to want to play it both ways, as to the existence of Jesus. He compares belief in Jesus to that of Santa Claus<\/span>, and makes a direct comparison to Superman<\/span> (a mere cartoon character), and also to leprechauns,\u00a0Russell\u2019s Flying Teapot<\/span>, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster<\/span>.\u00a0He states flat-out that<\/span> \u201cJesus is imaginary.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He talks about Jesus needing to assure us<\/span> \u201cthat he really exists. He doesn\u2019t.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>That doesn\u2019t sound like a very robust existence to me<\/em>, or like existence at all. Does it to anyone else<\/em>? <\/span><\/p>\n Either he is unwittingly contradicting himself (in his overall haze of confusion), or he is cleverly playing it one way to atheists and another to Christians. Or else<\/span> (to give the most charitable slant possible to this data, which I sincerely hope is in actuality the case), Bob used to deny the existence of Jesus and no longer does, though he remains<\/span> \u201csympathetic to the mythicists\u2019 arguments.\u201d People change their views over time. I certainly have.\u00a0If this is the case, then he needs to go revise (and\/or retract) the mocking, smart-ass \u201cdoesn\u2019t exist\u201d-type statements that I have documented, lest he confuse his readers as to his position.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s responses under fire to a fellow Catholic, on his blog (on 15-16 August 2018), suggest that he has either forgotten his own statements (the most charitable, \u201camnesiac\u201d \/ \u201cI\u2019ve written 1000+ posts\u201d take) or is deliberately misrepresenting them (the cynical, Bill and Hillary Clinton \/ obfuscation take):<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve never argued that Jesus never existed.\u00a0Pro tip: taking what Armstrong says at face value can embarrass you when it blows up in your face. He has a tenuous grasp on the truth. You need to fact-check whatever he says.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n I\u2019ve never argued either way. What\u2019s your reluctance? Are you remembering all those posts where I argued the question? Point them out to me. Oh wait\u2013I have a stalker who hangs on my every word. Maybe you could ask him. But be sure to get links to the quotes because he has a hard time with reality.\u00a0What\u2019s hard to understand here? \u201cJesus never existed\u201d is an argument that doesn\u2019t help me. It\u2019s a tangent. I have far more useful arguments if I were to argue against Christian claims.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n Getting back to the atheist propensity to ignore solid criticism: \u201cGrimlock\u201d: who was active on my blog for months and claimed to be interested in dialogue, also commented:<\/span><\/p>\n Why should I read anything by Armstrong? I see no compelling reason to do so.<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n Obtaining valuable information and knowledge are certainly things to strive for.\u00a0But that doesn\u2019t mean I will be getting that from reading the article to which you linked. Why should I think the article will provide valuable information?<\/span> (link<\/a>)<\/p>\n And on 8-15-18<\/a>, Bob reiterated that he has no intention of interacting with my critiques:<\/p>\n I have no interest in visiting his blog anymore, and if it becomes a cesspool of thoughtless yes-men, then that\u2019s Dave\u2019s loss. Every now and then one of his dittoheads might come over here, and we can show them how their logic stands up in the real world.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n On 27 June 2019<\/a>, Bob showed that he was still playing the same game: talking out of both sides of his mouth, so that he won\u2019t alienate his more fanatical atheist brethren who (unlike him) outright deny Jesus\u2019 existence. He says just enough to make them believe either that he is \u201cone of them\u201d or close enough to be a would-be ally in the battle against established historical truth and facts:<\/p>\n \u201cThis is so foolish, I have never met more than<\/span>\u00a0one relevantly trained atheist who believed it<\/u>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n You need to get out more. I\u2019ve met two, Dr. Richard Carrier (doctorate in history) and Dr. Robert M. Price (two doctorates: one in Systematic Theology and another in New Testament).<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not well read on the historical Jesus issue and so don\u2019t make this argument, but I also avoid it because it\u2019s tangential. There are much simpler and more effective attacks on Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n Some religions start with real people who actually lived (Joseph Smith for Mormonism<\/a>, Mary Baker Eddy for Christian Science, Bah\u00e1\u2019u\u2019ll\u00e1h for Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed), and some may not have (Buddha for Buddhism<\/a>, Lao Tzu for Taoism, Zoroaster for Zoroastrianism). \u201cJesus was just a myth\u201d is hardly a radical claim. Said another way, providing overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical would be a difficult challenge.<\/span><\/p>\n And in the combox:<\/p>\n All that supernatural stuff surrounding the Jesus story makes me wonder if that makes it\u00a0inherently\u00a0<\/i>less plausible. There\u2019s nothing supernatural around the Robin Hood story. Or William Tell, or John Henry, or King Arthur (ignoring the Merlin bit). And if there is, the story survives after you remove the supernatural. In the case of Jesus,\u00a0nothing\u00a0<\/i>remains if you remove the supernatural stuff.<\/span> (6-27-19<\/a>)<\/p>\n Yeah\u2013Jesus as a real man or not doesn\u2019t change things for me. Nevertheless, some of the more erudite commenters here have studied it (Greg G comes to mind), and I find their comments quite interesting.\u00a0<\/span>(6-27-19<\/a>)<\/p>\n I don\u2019t make the \u201cJesus was a myth\u201d argument, though that to me is a very plausible possibility. . . .\u00a0Lots of people, even non-Christians can believe that Jesus existed as a real person. Jesus as a myth or legend remains very plausible.<\/span>\u00a0(7-18-19<\/a>)<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\nHoward Marshall<\/h3>\n
\n
Michael Grant<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Rudolf Bultmann<\/h3>\n
\n
6. \u201cBonus: Jesus did not (or probably did not) exist.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n