Home » Religion » (Offtopic) Italian Court to Decide the Existence of Jesus

(Offtopic) Italian Court to Decide the Existence of Jesus

Check this out!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

35 Responses to (Offtopic) Italian Court to Decide the Existence of Jesus

  1. Send in the clowns! This reminds me of a Monty Python skit; God exists, two falls to a submission.

  2. “I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters.

    “The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala,” Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

    Let’s not even beat around the bush- this guy is a madman.

    Not even rational atheists claim that Jesus never existed. NO serious scholar disputes his existence. Only crazy old kooks like this guy. Some people are just so sad, you have to feel sort of sorry for them.

  3. Josh writes:
    “Not even [sic] rational atheists claim that Jesus never existed. NO serious scholar disputes his existence. Only crazy old kooks like this guy.”

    Not so fast, Josh. You may not agree with them, but Michael Martin, Robert Price and Earl Doherty are not simply “crazy old kooks.”

    See the following for a look at both sides of the issue:
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

    Interestingly, there is a documentary on this very subject, produced by a self-described “atheist Christian”:
    http://www.thegodmovie.com/

    It’s in my Netflix queue. I’ll report back when I’ve seen it.

  4. http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/martincac2.html

    http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertytrial.html

    If you have several hours to waste, just go browse this site. Run Doherty’s name, there’s a lot there about him.

  5. Sorry Keiths, Michael Martin, Robert Price and Earl Doherty are indeed kooks. Check tektonics.org.

    All are fringe atheists. Doherty has zero credentials…Price is affiliated with the fringe Jesus Seminar that few take seriously. Martin is an infidels site member. None of these men are scholars.

    This is how confused Martin is:

    First there are conceptual difficulties with Heaven. To begin with the notion of human existence in Heaven–be it disembodied or embodied–is conceptually unintelligible. In the most common theory of our heavenly existence the immaterial soul of a human being–not the body–goes to Heaven shortly after his or her death. In this interpretation Heaven is considered “a place” although not in time and space. In a second theory–one that many scholars believe is the original Christian view–Heaven does not exist now but will exist in the future with the Second Coming. With the Second Coming people’s bodies will be resurrected in an altered form but will be rewarded in the space in which we now live.

    With respect to the first theory it is difficult enough to imagine even in a rough way what disembodied existence would be like in time and space. How would a soul move from place to place? How would it recognize other souls? What would disembodied souls do all day long since presumably there would be no need to sleep? The problem becomes insuperable when it is combined with the idea that Heaven is outside of space and time. All of our mental concepts–for instance, thinking, willing, and desiring–are temporal notions that take time to perform and occur at some particular time. Nontemporal thinking and desiring are inconceivable. Yet on this variant, souls think and desire nontemporally.

    So, his argument is- heaven is absurd (this is part of an essay on why Christianity is absurd (sounds totally scholarly to me!) because he can’t imagine how souls (if they were disembodied) could move around? Or that all mental concepts require the notion of time? Who says? It’s absurd to imagine a place ruled by GOD and how he makes this possible to think and act and feel in a nontemporal space? Golly, surelt God couldn’t do that…so heaven must be absurd!

    Like I said, no real scholars who aren’t on the fringe of insanity claim Christ never existed.

  6. Josh,

    It’s funny that you and MGD should both cite tektonics.org, run by the infamous Robert Turkel (aka James Patrick Holding).

    I first ran across Turkel in reading his justification of the Inquisition:
    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

    He’s also a fan of the Crusades.

    He now has a cartoon website through which he acts out revenge fantasies on his Internet opponents. See the following links for a couple of examples.
    http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/gargytoon.html
    http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/carriertoon.html

    The weird thing is that he doesn’t seem to understand that this petulant childishness does nothing for his credibility.

    If you’re judging Martin, Price and Doherty on the basis of Turkel’s opinion, you might want to take a second look at the integrity and maturity of your source.

    Google his name and his alias for some interesting examples of his MO.

  7. I know that AKA Holding has a sarcastic writting style, but it seems harmless to me as does his cartoons.Here he defends himself and his style: http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyreply.html
    Perhaps his opponents are too thin skinned. Paranoid? Resorting to ad hominem attacks makes me question your maturity and intellect so dont waste my time. I judge your three by their arguments not their character or Holdings opinion.If you have an issue with his arguments I suggest you take it up with him. Honestly, outside the internet I have never even heard of these guys. I’m no expert, but I have read many books on new testement history and the like and have never encountered them. No books by these three are at my university library or at in the local county system.

    Another site that has similar material is: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
    Glenn Miller’s tone is not like Holdings so some may find it more palatable.

  8. Keiths…no doubt you’d reply with dishonesty. He’s a fan of the Crusades? He justifies the inquisition? Neither is true. He argues that CHRISTIANITY didn’t cause the Inquisition, but rather mere human nature did.

    It’s odd you’d link to that page when he addresses many from the infidel’s site. And he makes it obvious (and the essay itself) that your charge is bogus.

    I have a feeling you just don’t like him, which is why you also complained about those tame cartoons. Well, actually when I saw them (again- I’ve seen them before), I cringed and nearly threw the computer out the window. I started screaming EVIL! EVIL! and tossed holy water all over my desk. Revenge fantasies. Give me a break.

  9. Holding is a crazy goon(smile…), however, he knows what he is talking about. Keiths’ complains that Holding is a loudmouth bigot. I think holding is ten times more respectful than the goons at the infidels website, or the other village atheist parading around. Check out some of the comments made on the infidels website? Are they respectful?

  10. I like the one with Dan Barker on it!

  11. And then there is the man who sends chills down the spine of Michael Martin and Co…

    http://www.leaderu.com/offices.....over2.html

    The undefeated apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig

  12. MGD writes:
    “Resorting to ad hominem attacks makes me question your maturity and intellect so dont waste my time.”

    Josh Bozeman writes:
    “Keiths…no doubt you’d reply with dishonesty.”

    You’ve got to admit this is pretty funny:
    1. Josh labels Jesus-doubters “crazy old kooks.” (ad hominem)
    2. I name three who aren’t, not because I agree with them, but to counter Josh’s ad hominem.
    3. MGD provides links to Turkel’s web site. The very first sentence of the very first article accuses doubters of advancing their ideas out of “desperation” (ad hominem).
    4. Josh refers me to Turkel’s site and says that the three “are indeed kooks.” (ad hominem)
    5. I point out Turkel’s ad hominems to MGD and Josh.
    6. MGD accuses me of ad hominems and impugns my “maturity and intellect.” (ad hominem)
    7. Josh accuses me of dishonesty. (ad hominem)

    And for a little Renard-style irony (may he rest in peace), here’s a Josh quote from the sinking ship thread:
    “Their refusal to discuss the issue and actually waving off an entire group of people as crazies says a lot about many of them.”

    Josh (from the current thread):
    “He argues that CHRISTIANITY didn’t cause the Inquisition, but rather mere human nature did.”

    Josh (from the Dawkins thread):
    “You totally missed the point in that the 20th century Godless regimes took around 100 million people.”

    I see… so when a “Godless regime” kills someone for political reasons, atheism is to blame. But when Christian authorities torture someone to death for religious reasons, it’s not an indictment of Christianity, but of “mere human nature.”

  13. Now you’re distorting what I said Keith. The quote about atheistic regimes was in reply to Dawkin’s claims that religion is the root of all evil, and atheism is best for the world. That is proven false by the fact that, if one is to take atheistic governments of the 20th century, they’ve killed more than all religions combined.

    Atheism doesn’t have a belief system in the sense that Christianity does. The problem is- with atheism, one has no ethical or moral absolutes. That’s just ONE problem with the worldview.

    Christianity, the doctrines themselves, aren’t responsible for the inquisition, but rather human nature. You were claiming that he’s a fan of the crusades and such and has no problem with the inquisition, which is dishonest, because that’s not what he said at all. Calling someone dishonest when they’re being dishonest is not an ad hominem, sorry to say. It’s mere factual observation.

    The problem is- Holding never said that, he said that the RELIGION itself didn’t lead to the Inquisition. You will find not scripture that talks about the Inquisition or any commands to do any of these things. So, yes- it’s absurd to blame the religion.

    When it comes to Dawkins claim that religion is evil- you only need to show that numerous good things that came from religion (science, hospitals, charities, etc). Clearly, these things cannot be the result of evil. Unless Dawkins, a scientist, is claiming his own practice is evil, since modern science was borne out of Christians wanting to study God’s creation. Atheistic governments are clearly working on a framework of atheism- that there is no real right and wrong, that all is material and nothing else, and that no true absolute value judgements can be made, because they are, in the end, illusory in nature. Surely, you can, in fact, blame those concepts for the deaths under Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc. Because they’re the result of actions based on the worldview itself…the activities of the inquisition are not Biblically based however. Therein lies the difference.

    I think all of that was fairly obvious, despite your attempt to confuse the issue.

  14. I think Keith thinks EVERYTHING is an ad hominem. Do you suppose one never make a statement of fact, even if it’s a fact that you disagree with?

    “MGD provides links to Turkel’s web site. The very first sentence of the very first article accuses doubters of advancing their ideas out of “desperation” (ad hominem).”

    It remains that those you mentioned are not serious mainstream scholars. They are considered on the fringe in nearly every possible way. So, the issue stands- only a handful of kooks (call that what you want, but it’s the truth, and it’s evident by reading any of their essays) claim that Christ never existed.

  15. Oh, I totally missed the fact that you tried to claim that A happened because of political reasons and B for religious reasons, tho that’s also untrue. Communism and atheism go hand in hand. The Nazi regime (as well as N. Korea) depended on the idea that there was no God to look to- nazism was the religion and mein kampf was the holy book. The N. Korean regime has depended on the ability to brainwash people into thinking the great and dear leader’s are their “gods” and they need nothing else. Stalin and Lenin needed the people to forgo religion and look to the state for EVERYTHING. So, don’t claim that the Godless regimes I mentioned did what they did for political reasons and it wasn’t about religion, because it surely was. You had to get rid of religion and form a new entity (the state) to look to for ALL of your needs, which is how the state gained so much power. It was all about religion (or the lack of and the attempts to destroy religion) that made these regimes what they were.

  16. Josh writes:
    “[Holding] said that the RELIGION itself didn’t lead to the Inquisition. You will find not scripture that talks about the Inquisition or any commands to do any of these things. So, yes- it’s absurd to blame the religion.”

    Josh, you keep falling into the double-standard trap. If Christianity is blameless because scripture didn’t mandate the Inquisition, then how can you turn around and blame atheism for Stalin when there is no “atheist scripture” mandating his misdeeds?

  17. Atheism, as a worldview, can be blamed for these things…Christianity, and it’s doctrines, cannot. You’re going to deny that the Communist nations didn’t use atheism as a cause for their actions? On top of that- you can hardly deny that their actions fit with the atheistic worldview- if man is a purposeless meaningless cancer inflicted upon society, then we can hardly expect any value judgements.

    There is no atheistic scripture, but of course there are tenants that all who proclaim the worldview accept. One of those being that life is ultimately meaningless, that humans aren’t special, and that all you see in material is all there is.

    Just as there are basics of Christianity, and murder and torture in this manner isn’t one of them. Christianity says that man IS special, that life does, indeed, have purpose and meaning and that there’s more than what we see in the material. There’s no hope with atheism, even some famous atheists have admitted the worldview is dark, dim, depressing, and spirit killing…you wouldn’t say the same thing of Christianity tho. So, both have basic tenants that one must accept to proclaim the worldview as their own. There need not be a written scripture, tho we DO have the atheist maniesto! So, maybe we’ll call that the scripture.

    There is no double standard here. The atheistic worldview lead to the regimes I spoke of…the Christian worldview did not. That’s not to say that atheists are killers in general. It’s to say that many people refuse to fully follow their own atheism- few humans full accept the atheistic worldview and do much to fight against certain aspects of it- especially when it comes to the supposed lack of absolute ethics, morality that ISN’T illusory, etc.

  18. “There need not be a written scripture, tho we DO have the atheist maniesto! So, maybe we’ll call that the scripture.”

    That would be the Humanist Manifesto, actually. While the statements contained within were obviously hostile to other religions they weren’t exactly advocating genocide against opponents (at least in that document):

    “Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.”

  19. Josh writes:
    “That’s not to say that atheists are killers in general. It’s to say that many people refuse to fully follow their own atheism- few humans full accept the atheistic worldview and do much to fight against certain aspects of it…”

    So now you’re saying that our atheism obligates us to be genocidal killers, if only we would “fully follow” it? Shame on us for being so inauthentic.

  20. Never said that either Keith. I said that the regimes mentioned above directly used atheism for their cause. If you live in a worldview that life isn’t very precious (if a man is no better than a dog, life is not precious, by definition)- that can be used to support such ideas as mentioned above.

    Let’s not kid ourselves with the wholly contradictory manifesto. How can, if you claim there is no God, even know what morality is? If there’s no lawgiver, there can never truly be a law. There are laws in the US because there’s an entity that gave those laws. Even if you’re a small community, a leader gives the laws and that’s why there are laws. You cannot create morality if ultimately life is purposeless and man is no better than a rat or a bug or a cow.

    If you fully follow the worldview, you can hardly make ANY value or ethical or moral judgements. You do something someone else considers bad or wrong- big deal…it’s your brain chemistry, it’s just different. Get over it. There’s no utlimate lawgiver, no absolute law- only mere opinion of what is right and wrong (even right and wrong cannot truly exist as absolutes without someone to hand them down.- right and wrong will change over time. Which means right and wrong have no true meaning.)

    If you follow the worldview fully- you’d have no problem with killing others. Why not? If you can go out and kill a deer or a bear, what stops you from killing a person who is no better (just merely higher on the evolutionary chain) than those animals? Why? Because you think it’s awful, and you’d never eat a child like you would a cow, and you would never kill a child like you’d kill a rat in your basement. But why not? If we’re all just animals, and right and wrong and good and bad can never be absolute- why? Because, you proclaim atheism, yet at the same time you claim a moral law that is absolute and you live by that moral code even tho, inside your worldview, it cannot really exist…it would be totally illusory. Yet, you live day by day as if these rights and wrong and good and bad are not illusory but real absolutes that all men live by and all should live by.

    No one said that the written text had to say commit genocide…it’s obviously more complex. When Stalin used the atheistic worldview to tell men that they need not a God, that there are no true right and wrong, that the state would decide all of that for them, he was using atheism for his cause. Atheism, the worldview, was responsible for the actions…

    You’d probably never espouse your atheism to a child would you? Why not? Because it’s terrible…”Here Johnny. You have to understand that you’re nothing special. You’re just a machine made of meat (as many atheists have said). You’re just an animal like spot the dog over there. You’re higher up the ladder then he is, but you’re just an animal. Now. Right and wrong are just illusions created by evolution, and controlled by chemicals in your brain. Rape is okay (as atheist, sociobiologist Randy Thornhill has said), and murder and other forms of violence can be tolerated as well…as long as it further your evolutionary needs. When you have your own children, you should be able to choose to murder them if you decide you dont want them after they’re born. (as Peter Singer says.) If you want, you can have sex with spot the dog someday (again, as Peter Singer says). One day you will die and you will turn into worm food and you will cease to exist, and that will be it for you. Your life isn’t worth much of anything. It’s a tiny spark of light that means nothing in between two immense blocks of darkness. I love you, but in reality my love is nothing but a brain chemical that fools me into thinking I love you because it once helped our ancestors evolve. Now, honey, go to bed and have sweet dreams.”

    That worldview could never lead to anything but good. No doubt.

    Please explain how if ethics and morality are purely illusions that never existed- what stops a Stalin from doing what he did? Because YOU think it’s wrong? Why do you think it’s wrong…if right and wrong are just opinions, you’ve no right to judge HIS opinions, no more than I have any right to say you’re a bad person for liking the music you like. How can anyone ever condemn what Stalin did if we posit that right and wrong don’t exist? Because it’s bad to kill people? Why is it bad to kill people if bad is just a term you use to describe something you don’t like, but it has no true meaning? Because YOU don’t like it and it makes YOU feel bad, it’s wrong?

    There’s no way to explain any of these things in an atheistic worldview. And the very notion of this indeed had a big part in shaping these governments. When you feed the worldview of atheism to people, they’ve no real reason to care about the murder of 6 million over here- as long as it isn’t them…they have no reason to care about millions beign starved over here, just as long as they have food. In the end, it’s a rat race for survival that has no point anyway- so why would any rational person care?

    The entire worldview is a contradiction for most…some at least live it out fully (a very small handful of people), but at least they’re honest and don’t have one foot in both worldviews at all times.

  21. Josh

    “How can, if you claim there is no God, even know what morality is?”

    How can you prove that the morality you claim is given by God is actually given by God and not the invention of men claiming to speak for God?

    This is the big problem I have with religions based upon revelation. God in all revealed religions (not just Christianity) uses men to speak and record the revelations. Men can lie, be deceived, have hallucinations, and all manner of things which makes their testimony intentionally or unintentionally unreliable. Plus atheists can be nice people with good values. Are you seriously saying that the only way to know right from wrong is to read it in the bible? If so I suggest you read the parts about judge not lest ye be judged and he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  22. Josh, by your logic the Christian worldview led to the carpet bombing of Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, and dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The number of innocent men, women, and children killed by the Christian unleashing of the most terrible weapons ever devised by man is staggering. How do you square that with your jingoistic “life is precious” religious mantra? The fact of the matter is that both religious and irreligious cultures can do bad things.

    I want this body count nonsense to stop. This is your final warning. If you try to get in a last word on this you’re out of here. The same goes for Keith.

  23. No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying with atheism you can never truly have absolute morality. It can only be an illusion. You can never have law without a lawgiver.

    If the morality is men pretending to speak for God, then there probably isn’t a God at all. It’s irrational to think of a God who would create the universe and toss it into a trashbin and left it fend for itself.

    What other religion can you have outside of one based on revelation? Deism? Deism is nonsensical and irrational- there’s a God, but he created things and walked away and said ‘to hell with all of this’? And we’re supposed to gain knowledge of his existence how? By saying- well, there MUST be a God, it SEEMS like there’s a God. That’s a dead end from the start. That’s surely a God no rational person, I think, could ever worship. Then again, that God wouldn’t want you to worship him, because he wouldn’t give a damned about you or anything about the universe itself.

    It doesn’t automatically follow that revelation of God is intentionally or unintentionally unreliable. You can’t condemn it like that as bogus from the start. It’s quite possible that they were indeed speaking through God and have revealed him. The historical claims of Christ, the resurrection, etc. attest to that. You can hardly wave that all off as bogus and lies from the get-go.

    I’m saying the only way you can have ANY law is for that law to come from a lawgiver. Any so-called “law” that is just proclaimed as law without a lawgiver is nothing but personal opinion, which means good and evil don’t exist- they’re just differences in personal taste.

    An atheist can be a “nice” person with “good values”- but in their worldview the terms nice, good, and values are ultimately meaningless. They’re illusory constructs of humans that change as much as the wind changes direction. If these terms have no real meaning, it’s ultimately meaningless to even use them to begin with. EVERYTHING is utlimately meaningless in the end.

    Finally, you confuse the bible verse. God has no problem with a Christian condemning an atheistic worldview. Nor does he have any problem with people pointing out the logical absurdities and contradictions that need to be in place in the life of every atheist. They claim there’s no lawgiver, so no ultimate absolute law, yet most of them live as if there are absolute laws. A full atheist, living the full worldview would realize that right and wrong and human opinions under their worldview, and that morality is the same. Good and evil don’t truly exist, and man has no true right to make any value judgements.

  24. “This is the big problem I have with religions based upon revelation. God in all revealed religions (not just Christianity) uses men to speak and record the revelations.”

    True, but if the testimony is reliable, then one is certainly justified by heeding to them. The new testament documents were no later written than 62 A.D. Almost less 30 years after Christs’ death. This places it perfectly within the eyewitnesses’ life time. Thirty years is not enough time for myth fabrication. Of course, this can occur. However, don’t historians still recall things that occured in 1977. From then till now-is that enough time for fabrication? If it is, then we should reject all historian testimony and reconstruction.

    ” Plus atheists can be nice people with good values. Are you seriously saying that the only way to know right from wrong is to read it in the bible? ”

    No, but good values are nothing but meaningless subjective outcomes of a purposeless natural process. So why be moral? And why believe something that isn’t objective and true? Get the picture, DaveScot?

  25. Josh is no longer with us.

    Benjii – “why be moral”

    Because if you treat others badly they are likely to treat you badly in return. What goes around comes around. That’s basically “the golden rule” and it’s endorsed by most of the world’s major religions and few irreligious people argue with it. The golden rule is a self-evident truth sort of like all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  26. What happened to Josh?

  27. Don’t get Josh out. He’s a wonderful contributor. That’s totally unfair.

    “Because if you treat others badly they are likely to treat you badly in return. What goes around comes around. That’s basically “the golden rule” ”

    True, but who cares about a rule, that once again, is the outcome of an evolutionary process. Thus rendering it without a basis. “As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, ” If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.”{5} Given the finality of death, it really doesn’t matter how you live. So what do you say to someone that concludes that we may as well just live for self–interest, live just as we please, for pleasure?” (W.L Craig)

  28. Josh wrote a flaming comment to me after being warned to drop the body count rhetoric. I deleted the flame and the flamer.

    Benjii, Professor Dembski already banned you once. I didn’t agree at the time that you deserved it but I may have been wrong.

    Now back to the discussion:

    “who cares about a rule, that once again, is the outcome of an evolutionary process”

    Presumably the creatures who are the outcome of the evolutionary process would be the ones that care. In support of this I said that the golden rule is supported by almost all major religions (maybe all of them) and few irreligious people are not supportive of it. That’s a lot of caring.

    Dostoyevsky is wrong. If this is the only chance at life we get then life is indeed a precious thing. On the other hand, if life continues on in heaven then why care if people die since it only means they’ll be moving along to a better place? As an admitted agnostic I don’t know if life somehow continues after death but it’s the possibility that this is the only shot we get that makes me sad when innocents die.

  29. “Benjii, Professor Dembski already banned you once. I didn’t agree at the time that you deserved it but I may have been wrong.”

    Are you going to ban me just because I disagree with your position? You did the same thing to Josh. That’s unfair. Bill didn’t do that to me. All you’re doing is just banning people because they question your beliefs. It’s a free country. The advantage you have is defense, and more power to it if you can. Remember, DaveScot, you were almost kicked out as well from this blog. Keep in mind that Dr. Dembski gave you this priveledge. Nobody else! You shouldn’t domineer over people who disagree with you. If you want to kick me out, fine! I’d rather be on a blog where there is freedom of thought and expression, not on a Stalinist one.

    Your wish is my command. I hope you find a blog more suited to you. -ds

  30. That’s a weird reason to kick someone out. With all due respect Dave, that doesn’t seem very tolerant of you to do that. As a friend, I would tell you to be more respectful to people who disagree with you.

  31. I think this is an interesting discussion.
    Here is a good resource for one side of the debate as to the existence of a person called Jesus Christ.
    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

    {{” The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.”}}

    If this is right, then Jesus Christ tanslates as Savior the Messiah.

  32. “There is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, during his entire lifetime.
    This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”
    – Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (1992, p. 360).

  33. If there’s anything constructive forthcoming from bickering over whether Christ was a real person or not I can’t identify it.