# ITT I pit people who try to debate theology ignorantly **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133 "2005-02-03T06:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/21 "2005-02-03T16:08:15Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > There also is no evidence that George Washington, Constantine, and Leonardo da Vinci existed. :rolleyes: Yes there is, there’s a ton of evidence for all of them. We have scads of primary evidence for all of them, including theoir own writings, drawings, first hand testimony of others and their fucking _dead bodies_, for fuck’s sake. There is none of that for Jesus. There are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts whatsooever. > [@](#): > > As I said to **blowero** , I defy you to find a historical expert that believes Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. There is a growing minority of mythicists led by such scholars as Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Robert Price and Burton Mack who espouse the view that Jesus never existed. Even the historians who believe that he did exist do so minimally. They think there was probably a historical figure who inspired the myth but they also think that very little can be discovered about him anymore and that the gospels are mostly fiction. > [@](#): > > By the way, many historians (including some that aren’t of a biblical faith) accept the bible as a history book - or at least some parts of it. Completely false. > [@](#): > > Many of the events that it describes are verified by other sources Almost none before the exilic period and much of it can be demonstrably shown to be ahistorical. > [@](#): > > such as the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. This is highly debatable. The crucifixion is attested in only two extra-Biblical sources which are anything close to historical. They are the _Testimonium Flavianum_ from Josephus’ _Antiquities_ and the Tacitus bit which was quoted by **Lib** above. The former is universally regarded as being at least a partial forgery and Tacitus probably got his info from Christians which makes it questionable as an independent attestation. Personally, IANA mythicist. I think HJ existed, left a sayings tradition and was crucified. I don’t believe in any of the mythology associated with him but I think he was probably a real guy. Having said that, it is far from a slam dunk to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/22 "2005-02-03T16:29:55Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > There also is no evidence that George Washington, Constantine, and Leonardo da Vinci existed. :rolleyes: > > As I said to **blowero** , I defy you to find a historical expert that believes Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. > > By the way, many historians (including some that aren’t of a biblical faith) accept the bible as a history book - or at least some parts of it. Many of the events that it describes are verified by other sources, such as the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. I can’t see any credible historians supporting the authenticty. I see a lot of Christian apologists bandying about the same old discredited arguments though. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim it’s up to you to provide the extraordinary proof. I’m willing to accept there might well have been one of the many Messiah’s roaming the land that might have been Jesus and whose name might have been usurped for crafting the Christian ideology. Means nothing though in the face of the massively contradictory accounts of the gospels (and no serious scholar accepts these are eye-witness accounts anyway), the lack of an historical Jesus in the unforged Pauline letters, the massive geographical errors in the gospels which show they weren’t written by anyone familiar with palestine. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/23 "2005-02-03T19:55:46Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes there is, there’s a ton of evidence for all of them. We have scads of primary evidence for all of them, including theoir own writings, drawings, first hand testimony of others and their fucking _dead bodies_, for fuck’s sake. That was a joke. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is none of that for Jesus. There are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts whatsooever. I don’t think that’s the case. But IANA historian by trade. The few people I have talked to seem to agree with me that it’s generally accepted, just like so many other nuggets of history. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is a growing minority of mythicists led by such scholars as Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Robert Price and Burton Mack who espouse the view that Jesus never existed. Even the historians who believe that he did exist do so minimally. They think there was probably a historical figure who inspired the myth but they also think that very little can be discovered about him anymore and that the gospels are mostly fiction. I was unaware of this. As I said, I’m not a professional, but the historians I’ve talked to don’t doubt his existence. **Liberal** posted one account, which, while secondhand, I see no reason to doubt. I also have no doubt there are others, but at the moment, I can’t spend the time to look for them. Perhaps I’ll come back to this when I do. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/24 "2005-02-03T20:25:25Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > That was a joke. > > I don’t think that’s the case. Trust me it is. I know something about this stuff. > [@](#): > > But IANA historian by trade. The few people I have talked to seem to agree with me that it’s generally accepted, just like so many other nuggets of history. Historians accept bare historicity based upon the two extra-Biblical references which I mentioned above (Josephus and Tacitus). Those two short mentions represent the only thing close to historical corroboration for the crucifixion outside of the NT. > [@](#): > > I was unaware of this. As I said, I’m not a professional, but the historians I’ve talked to don’t doubt his existence. **Liberal** posted one account, which, while secondhand, I see no reason to doubt. I also have no doubt there are others, but at the moment, I can’t spend the time to look for them. Perhaps I’ll come back to this when I do. There is one other. Josephus- but it is widely regarded as being at least partially forged. Josephus also has a very short reference to the execution of James, “the brother of Jesus who was called ‘the Christ.’” This fragment has been challenged by some as an interpolation and is accepted by others. As I said before, I personally believe that Jesus existed but it’s not an easy thing to prove definitively. The circumstancial evidence of Christianity itself (and the seeming belief of Paul in a historical Jesus within 20 years of the crucifixion) along with the very scant extra-Biblical evidence has convinced more historians than not that Jesus existed (which is a long way from saying he was the Son of God, of course) but those conclusions are based more on a conclusion of liklihood rather than any smoking gun confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/25 "2005-02-03T21:46:29Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I can’t see any credible historians supporting the authenticty. I see a lot of Christian apologists bandying about the same old discredited arguments though. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim it’s up to you to provide the extraordinary proof. > > I’m willing to accept there might well have been one of the many Messiah’s roaming the land that might have been Jesus and whose name might have been usurped for crafting the Christian ideology. Means nothing though in the face of the massively contradictory accounts of the gospels (and no serious scholar accepts these are eye-witness accounts anyway), the lack of an historical Jesus in the unforged Pauline letters, the massive geographical errors in the gospels which show they weren’t written by anyone familiar with palestine. I was unaware, until now, of just how much bullshit could fit into a single post. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/26 "2005-02-03T21:59:41Z")
**Lib** , some of **Tagos’** statements might be debated within scholasrhip (whether Paul clearly describes a historical Jesus, for instance) but none of it is “bullshit” and in much of what Tagos says is pretty factual. The Gospels are _not_ eyewitness accounts. They _are_ contradictory. They _do_ contain geographical errors. There _were_ a lot of people calling themselves Messiahs. None of that, in itself, proves the mythicist case but it’s not fair or accurate to call it “bullshit.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/27 "2005-02-03T22:20:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Lib** , some of **Tagos’** statements might be debated within scholasrhip (whether Paul clearly describes a historical Jesus, for instance) but none of it is “bullshit” and in much of what Tagos says is pretty factual. The Gospels are _not_ eyewitness accounts. They _are_ contradictory. They _do_ contain geographical errors. There _were_ a lot of people calling themselves Messiahs. > > None of that, in itself, proves the mythicist case but it’s not fair or accurate to call it “bullshit.” It is replete with bullshit from wall to wall. 1. There indeed are credible historians supporting the authenticity of the historical Jesus and His crucifixion. (Not counting [Cecil](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html)). 2. A disagreement between two scholars does not mean that one has “discredited” the other. 3. That Jesus lived and was crucified is not an extraordinary claim. 4. There is no evidence to support bogus alternate theories about usurpation, and yet he is willing to accept them. 5. The gospel accounts are not “massively contradictory”; they have some minor contradictions (which is evidence weighing against forgery). 6. Some scholars believe that Mark’s accounts are eyewitness or at most one person removed. 7. There is no lack of Christ in Romans. 8. There are not “massive geographical errors”. Using that sort of hyperbole smacks of an agenda to me. ---
**Author:** ![Domokun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c77e96/32.png) [@Domokun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Domokun)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/28 "2005-02-03T22:25:12Z")
Isn’t the “ITT” in your title rather redundant? Let’s not turn The Dope into Something Awful. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/29 "2005-02-03T22:57:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is replete with bullshit from wall to wall. > > 1. There indeed are credible historians supporting the authenticity of the historical Jesus and His crucifixion. (Not counting [Cecil](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html)). I read **Tagos’** statement about “authenticity” to be a responce to the OP’s more general assertion that historians accepted the Bible as history. It is true that a majority of historians still accept the bare historicity of Jesus and Lagos is wrong if he asserts that “none” do (but _some_ don’t. It’s not a settled issue). > [@](#): > > 1. A disagreement between two scholars does not mean that one has “discredited” the other. There are definitely some arguments and apologies made by Conservative Christian traditionalists that have been decisively discredited by scholarship. **Lagos** did not actually say that “scholars” had been discredited but “arguments.” Some arguments have been. > [@](#): > > 1. That Jesus lived and was crucified is not an extraordinary claim. Granted. > [@](#): > > 1. There is no evidence to support bogus alternate theories about usurpation, and yet he is willing to accept them. “Usurpation” was probably a bad word choice but it’s not extraordinary to hypthesize that one of the many historical Messiah claimants was mythicized after hsi death. > [@](#): > > 1. The gospel accounts are not “massively contradictory”; they have some minor contradictions (which is evidence weighing against forgery). There is no scholarly claim to “forgery” in the sense that any of the gospels try to pass themselves off as anyone else. They are pious fictions constructed from the Hebrew Bible, from oral tradition, from a sayings tradition and in some cases from each other. None of them makes any claim to be an eyewitness and all of them are anonymous. The authorship traditions stem from 2nd century Christian folklore and patristic claims which do not stand up to scrutiny. > [@](#): > > 1. Some scholars believe that Mark’s accounts are eyewitness or at most one person removed. Only the most conservative Christian scholars argue for this anymore. The tradition that Mark was a secretary of Peter has long been abandoned as authentic by most NT scholars (I can run down the reasons as to why, if you wish). It’s also true that the Gospels have a lot of contradictions. Whether they are “massive” I guess is a judgement call but some of them are pretty significant, IMO…particularly the appearance narratives which not only contradict each other but contradict Paul. > [@](#): > > 1. There is no lack of Christ in Romans. I agree that it cannot be stated as a fact that Paul did not intend to speak opf a historical Jesus but there are some scholars who argue that he didn’t and there arguments are not as vaccuous as you may suppose. > [@](#): > > 1. There are not “massive geographical errors”. Using that sort of hyperbole smacks of an agenda to me. Again, “massive” is a judgement call but Mark’s errors are significant enought to show a distinct lack of knowledge of Palestine. For instance, in the story of the Garasene demoniac, Mark places Gerasa on the shore of Galilee (remember the pigs running into the lake) but Gerasa is actually 30 miles away from the lake. Is it “massive?” I don’t know. But it’s not the kind of mistake you would expect from a native. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/30 "2005-02-04T06:51:02Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > > [@uglybeech](#): > > > > Sure, in the purely abstract theoretical world you’d have to of course, say you can never know for sure. But in the “real” everyday world I live in and function in there is no practical possibility that either God or Santa Claus exist. > > Ah, I knew it was coming eventually. I’m glad someone didn’t disappoint me. 😃 > > Surely there are intelligent, learned people in this world that say there’s no way that God doesn’t exist. There surely are. I think they’re wrong. > [@Othersider](#): > > Either you’re right and they’re wrong, or they’re right and you’re wrong. Which is it? 😉 I mean, my answer’s exactly the same. What you’re asking me to do is concede that I could be wrong. But that’s a concession I’ve already made - that in the abstract I can never know anything for sure. In the abstract I have to concede that I could have a million dollars in the bank or the world could be a figment of my imagination. I don’t and it’s not. Is this an arrogant statement because there’s always an abstract possibility that I’m wrong about anything and everything? It seems to me that atheists are always asked to privilege the theist’s belief over other more mundane beliefs. We don’t insist people insert the caveat (that you can’t know anything for sure) when they talk about the existence of Santa or the roundness of the earth. Why God? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/31 "2005-02-04T07:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > We have scads of primary evidence for all of them, including. . . their fucking dead bodies, for fuck’s sake. > > There is none of that for Jesus. Well, now, there wouldn’t be. . . . 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/32 "2005-02-04T08:23:07Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > I mean, my answer’s exactly the same. What you’re asking me to do is concede that I could be wrong. But that’s a concession I’ve already made - that in the abstract I can never know anything for sure. In the abstract I have to concede that I could have a million dollars in the bank or the world could be a figment of my imagination. I hardly see how it’s “abstract” that you can never know anything for sure. :dubious: 😃 > [@uglybeech](#): > > It seems to me that atheists are always asked to privilege the theist’s belief over other more mundane beliefs. We don’t insist people insert the caveat (that you can’t know anything for sure) when they talk about the existence of Santa or the roundness of the earth. Why God? When I was younger and less realistic, I never doubted the existence of God. When I was confronted with the idea of atheism, I believe I rejected it much like most people reject pigs flying. I was pressed to admit that I did not, in fact, know for certain that God exists. In having subsequent discussions with atheists, I have been reminded of the same thing. I once heard that it was some 90+% of the world that believes in God. In many of the circles that I frequent, the percentage seems much higher. At times, I have had the shoe on the other foot (the situation opposite of the one you mention in your first sentence here), so I think it just depends on the place and the people you’re talking to. Then again, maybe I’m just a bit peeved because I’ve had lots of people tell me, or post to me, that God doesn’t exist. Even if I were a fundamentalist-type theist, I wouldn’t go around pontificating that God does certainly exist, because obviously some people don’t believe he does and they have reasons to believe that. I try not to frame my theological perspective as a true fact when I know it’s not one, and I’m upset when other people do. Maybe if I hung around more fundamentalist theists I’d be less turned-off by the opposite perspective, because I’d be beefing with them too. The fact is I don’t have that many friends and relatives that are of the fundamentalist type, so more often than not, the unprovable dogma that gets thrown in my face is the attitude of strong atheism. I apologize if I offended you or pissed you off. I’m just trying to maintain the aura of pure correctness I strive for. As my father often told me, just because I disagree with someone doesn’t make either of us wrong. It makes us different. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/33 "2005-02-04T08:33:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It seems to me that it is the content of the opinion, and not the mere fact that an opnion is held, that the OP is pitting. One might not pit an opinion that Picasso was a talentless hack or even that Jesus was a huckster. But it seems perfectly appropriate to pit an opinion that people who like Picasso are morons or that people who believe in Jesus are delusional. The latter is a direct insult (if one understandably considers “moron” and “delusional” to be insults) toward members of the SDMB community. An opinion that atheists are somehow morally immature or intellectually challenged likewise would deserve a pitting. Bullshit, Lib. It’s not a _direct_ insult. He said _religiosity_ is pathological. He didn’t say, for example, that **Liberal** is pathological. If a person says, “People who do X are stupid”, and I _happen_ to be a person who does X, it is an _indirect_ insult at best. And no, I would not pit a person for saying, “people who like Picasso are morons”. I would recognize that for what it is, a simple statement of opinion. I don’t find a pitting appropriate at all for such things. But then, this doesn’t surprise me, since I very rarely agree with you on _anything_. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/34 "2005-02-04T09:01:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I was unaware, until now, of just how much bullshit could fit into a single post. The preview button is your friend, you should use it more. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/35 "2005-02-04T09:34:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Lib** , some of **Tagos’** statements might be debated within scholasrhip (whether Paul clearly describes a historical Jesus, for instance) but none of it is “bullshit” and in much of what Tagos says is pretty factual. The Gospels are _not_ eyewitness accounts. They _are_ contradictory. They _do_ contain geographical errors. There _were_ a lot of people calling themselves Messiahs. > > None of that, in itself, proves the mythicist case but it’s not fair or accurate to call it “bullshit.” Like you I have actually read the Gospels and read widely on the issue. Anyone who does not see the Gospels contradicting themselves in glaring fashion simply cannot have read them critically, if indeed at all. I know this is the Pit and I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind but if anyone is interested in actually thinking for themselves rather than swallow the myth whole they might find this interesting. [Are The Gospels True?](http://home.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html) > [@](#): > > The dates of the writing of the gospels are more certain. Most scholars agree that the oldest gospel, Mark, was written between 70 and 75. Matthew, although traditionally placed first in the New Testament, was actually written after Mark and is dated at between 80 and 90 as is Luke. John, the most recent, was written between 95 and 110. The oldest extant reference to gospel writings occurs in a letter form Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to the Trallians. The letter dates from around 107, and in it Ignatious mentions Pontius Pilate and the virgin Mary. The earliest reference to Jesus as a teacher appears in 1st Clement, a letter dated at about 110. To find the first reference to Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius and Clement to the Epistle of Barnabas dated 115. The earliest direct reference to the gospels by name appears in a letter to the Philippians from Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, dated 130. Because these early references are all dated after the writing of the gospels, it is logical to conclude that the gospels served as their primary source. Therefore, they can not be sited as reliable historical conformation of the existence of Jesus. > [@](#): > > The validity of the gospels went largely unchallenged as Christianity spread throughout western Europe and the New World. By the seventeenth century, however, scientific, historical, and literary evidence had accumulated to the extent that researchers began to openly question the authenticity of the gospels and of the Jesus they depict. > [@](#): > > The gospels emerged from this long period of critical examination not merely soiled, but totally bereft of any historical credibility. > [@](#): > > The results of this research can be summed up in the following five deductions: > > Acceptable external confirmation of Jesus does not exist. > The Apostle Paul was unaware of Jesus’ life and teachings. > The gospels are plagued with unresolved contradictions. > Many gospel quotes and stories are demonstrable forgeries. > Miracles and other unbelievable stories are unacceptable. > [@](#): > > I will concentrate only on first century sources, meager though they may be. > > Two Jewish historians, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberius, lived during Jesus’ alleged lifetime and wrote histories of the Jewish people covering this period. The work of Philo Judaeus is still available. It contains not a single reference to Jesus nor to any of the events described in the gospels. Although the work of Justus of Tiberius is now lost, a 9th century Christian scholar, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, (no inferior position) had read it and wrote: “He (Justus of Tiberius) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33.) > > To declare this to be a puzzling situation, as some Bible scholars have done, amounts to nothing less than a world class understatement. Jesus and the events surrounding his alleged ministry are said to have been well known throughout the land. For example, the gospels say that Jesus was a public figure known throughout Judea and Galilee (Mark 6:13-14 and Luke 7:14-17). According to the gospels he attracted huge crowds everywhere he went. In Matthew 21:46 we are told that upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem the authorities were afraid to arrest him because of the great multitude in attendance. Luke 23:27 tells us that there was a huge crowd at his crucifixion. Following his alleged resurrection we learn (Luke 24:18-19) that everyone in Jerusalem knew about Jesus. Given these pronouncements one would naturally expect to see frequent references to Jesus in contemporary histories and in other official documents of that time. However, no such references can be found. And so on and so on. This is not even to get into the congruities of the Jesus story with Pagan myths and heroes down to Last Suppers and rising from the dead after 3 days. These are so obvious theologians have been forced to argue ‘the devil did it’ by planting these myths to test our faith. Excuse me while I send out for an extra lorry of rolleyes. And ‘yes’ to whoever asked. Claiming that the Christian Jesus existed and did the things the Christian Church got around to claiming he did a few decades or centuries later is an extraordinary claim and demands proof more robust than exists. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/36 "2005-02-04T09:49:48Z")
I’m more then willing to believe that Moses, Jesus and Mohammed were all real blokes who believed in god and wanted others to feel that way. I am also willing to believe that each has there own following and that their followers like to discount each other. I’m also more then willing to believe that Hindus, Buddists etc know the “real” truth. I am happy for any believer of any religion to see me as a foolhardy non-believer. If they can be equally accepting of my nonbelief all will be well. Strangely the only ones ever wanting to convert me are christians. Are they the most insecure? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/37 "2005-02-04T10:21:24Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > Strangely the only ones ever wanting to convert me are christians. Are they the most insecure? The local Catholic priest, the Anglican minister, and the numerous local Uniting Church ministers never come knocking on my door. People from certain cults, Christian and non-Christian, started in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries, do. People from another non-Christian 20th century US cult accost me regularly in the street. People from yet another non-Christian 20th century US cult used to regularly solicit in public places, but appear to be dying out. See the real connecting thread? ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/38 "2005-02-04T10:24:12Z")
I see the light 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/39 "2005-02-04T10:25:37Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > I once heard that it was some 90+% of the world that believes in God. Unless the Straight Dope column that estimated there are a billion atheists in the world was wrong by a substantial percentage, you heard wrong. Throwing in the fact that not all theists believe in the same god or gods - “capital-gee god” usually means the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one, remember; say two billion people believe in that and you’ve got four billion who don’t - and I think you not only heard wrong, you’ve got a meaningless number. > [@](#): > > Then again, maybe I’m just a bit peeved because I’ve had lots of people tell me, or post to me, that God doesn’t exist. I don’t think it would kill you to be thicker skinned about it. You’ve made a bunch of posts about how much you resent people passing their opinions off as facts, and then you went and said it’s an undisputed fact that Jesus existed and was crucified, and that no historians disagree with you. Do you see the problem there? Maybe you’ve never heard anybody contradict these opinions before so you figured they were unchallenged. I don’t know. I do know **Diogenes** knows this period of history. It’s also impossible to miss that when challenged about these views, you quickly resorted to insults - “Only an ignoramus would deny that [Jesus’ crucifiction] happened” - and sarcasm - “there also is no evidence that George Washington, Constantine, and Leonardo da Vinci existed. :rolleyes:” I think you ought to realize you’re relying on hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133/40 "2005-02-04T11:34:31Z")
Dio, what Tagos ought to have said, had he been a calm and scholarly man, is that there is some (relatively modern) controversy over Jesus and the Gospels. But his rather conspicuous hand-stabbing agenda actually detracts from his argument. For example, any scholar who holds the position that Mark is (close to) an eyewitness account is going to be labelled conservative _because of the position he holds_. Then to say that he holds the position because he is conservative is a fallacy of circulus in demonstrando. Another example is that there are quite many ways to reconcile the lake reference, none of which are far-fetched. It is not necessary to introduce entities of conspiracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-i-pit-people-who-try-to-debate-theology-ignorantly/288133.md?page=3)