Was Jesus an Historical Figure?

Not worth anyones time.

Mr Zindler,

I must presume you entered into this debate to attempt to show why you believe the way you do regarding Jesus. I entered into this forum with the hope of being challenged and to apply what I am learning at credentialed institutions, being taught by men and women with degrees and doctorates in this area. What I have instead found, is simply another “Christ myth” soapbox. I suppose one more couldn’t hurt, the net is filled with them.

You have addressed none of the questions or comments put to you, you have only barely bothered yourself to address one of Holding’s arguments, and that was so poor it truly made me feel sorry for you. This is pretty much all you have done:

1) Dodged questions.
2) Criticized “apologists”. Who apparantly everyone except you and your secondary sources are.
3) Demonstrated a profound ignorance of contemporary historical methods and applications.
4) Downplayed the work of true, modern, and credentialed ancient historians.
5) Attempt to overturn their work with those of people who wrote nearly 175 years ago. (Remsburg)
6) Attempt to overturn their work with non-historians like Wells and Smith.
7) Spout undocumented assertions (usually backed by fellows from 5 or 6 above without citations)
8) Give a plug to your own book (another laymans viewpoint)
9) Hurled so many elephants your back must be killing you.

You have demonstrated that you know nothing more than the work of psychotic hyper-skeptics from the 19th century, and that you feel better laying with these fellows rather than with current researchers. Why? Well, because they don’t agree with your position. Because as you said to Mr Holding in your only reply, you see it as an “appeal to authority”. JP already answered your confusion with that logical fallacy so I will not go any deeper there.

As for the rest, there is no such thing as a “fact that speaks for itself”. This merely shows how amateurish and naïve you view of ancient historiography is. All facts are filtered and compared with other evidence from before, contemporary with, and after said facts appear in the historical record. The people in the world who do this for a living with regard to the NT are, I’m gonna say it again, historians of the ancient world and the ancient Christian Church.

Are we free to question an accepted historical hypothesis? Sure. But to completely overturn such a huge consensus, that is clearly supported with such a huge body of evidence, and supported by the historical/critical method developed by cotemporary historians, you need to have so much evidence and valid arguments that undertaking such a task would, most assuredly, lead one to see that the reason its so hard to do is because the “Christ myth” is unsupported, anti-historical junk.

All I see is your arguments are, essentially, “All contemporary historical study is wrong. Flawed to the core. They just aren’t smart enough to see it yet. But I do, myself and my little band of outdated, irrelevant and all around useless secondary sources are leading the charge screaming, ‘Change history or we’ll keep screaming until we fool enough people to force you to!’”

Mr Zindler, all you are doing is making it hard for people who know nothing about these topics, and making it easier for people to accept things like the “Holocaust Hoax”. Don’t like the history being taught? Change it! That may have worked in the old Soviet Union (ironically enough, they pushed pounds or propaganda saying Jesus didn’t live down peoples throats), but it will not work here.

History isn’t written so Frank Zindler can put his “stamp of approval” on it. For this reason, and all the ones listed above, I will not bother you anymore. I must classify this whole charade as “Not Worth Anyone’s Time.” Least of all mine.