And God Said "let there be arguments".

[DerAuslander]

Hiro you may be interested in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

From your own damn article:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

I did start out by saying I am out of my depth here.

Then maybe you might want to listen to virtually all modern scholars of antiquity, since you know so little on the subject.

[goodlun]

From your own damn article:
Then maybe you might want to listen to virtually all modern scholars of antiquity, since you know so little on the subject.

Because these are where those citations
are from
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-.../dp/0802843689
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter....0511659522A011
and
http://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Jesus-.../dp/0199246165

[DerAuslander]

Because these are where those citations
are from
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-.../dp/0802843689
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter....0511659522A011
and
http://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Jesus-.../dp/0199246165

Yes, because obviously Cambridge & Oxford cannot be held to any level of historical credibility.

[battlefields]

Fucking Cambridge and Oxford, who fucking listens to those idiots?

[DerAuslander]

Fake, I see the problem as this & let me know what you think.

While historians have moved on, pop culture skepticism of Christ's existence is still clinging to Bultmann like a virgin to the boy who popped her cherry.

[goodlun]

Yes, because obviously Cambridge & Oxford cannot be held to any level of historical credibility.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.

[DerAuslander]

http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.

How old are you?

[goodlun]

How old are you?

33
Old enough to know consensus on these sort of things change with time.

[DerAuslander]

http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.

He's referring to George Well's "The Jesus of the Early Christians", published in 1971. Wells, a professor of the German language, not of history, stated that the Jesus of the early Christian era was a complete myth, and not based on any valid historical figure. This is commonly called the non-existense hypothosis. He later publish a recant of this claim in "The Jesus Myth" in 1999, stating that while he still disagreed with much of early Christianity's portrayal of Christ, he acknowledged that the material of at least the synoptic Gospels was likely to have been based off of a real Jesus.

[DerAuslander]

33
Old enough to know consensus on these sort of things change with time.

1971 was not that long ago, the way these things move.