Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[proudfootz]

Have you heard of a place called "University"?

Indeed I have. I've studied under a prominent 'real Jesus' scholar and graduated from university.

As anyone who has attended university could inform you, professors are not infallible. Ask around!

It's where they study and teach History (amongst other things).

Yes, I know that. It may be news to you, but nothing new to me.

Not one University teaches the Myth Jesus that Carrier is pushing.

This assertion is not dispositive of anything.

You are free to try to convince the Historians that the MJ idea has merit, but no one has done so yet.

While Jesus may be a topic in Religious Studies, this figure doesn't have much meaning in any history course taught at university.

What have you got?

Wit, intelligence, and some study. How about you?

Or are you just here "asking questions" and trying to poke holes in the "Official Story"?

Any hypothesis that falls apart under critical questions might be in need of some reassessment.

Any story which relies on its status as 'official' for its credibility would appear to be lacking in the area of its persuasiveness in the evidentiary department.

 

[Brainache]

Doubting something that is merely asserted to be 'plausible' isn't quite the same thing.

In my experience scholars who seriously consider the literary origins of the figure of Jesus are far from ignorant. It would appear you are ignorant of their knowledge.



Who do you allege 'hasn't studied the subject' and what is your evidence for this (aside from you incredulity)?

I haven't met an MJ proponent who has studied History, have you?

I've heard of Richard Carrier of course, but even he seems less than confident in the idea, judging by his blog.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.
I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here.
I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,” or, “if we really find [e.g.] Carrier’s arguments compelling” then we should “still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about).”
Amen.
...

Indeed I have. I've studied under a prominent 'real Jesus' scholar and graduated from university.

As anyone who has attended university could inform you, professors are not infallible. Ask around!

Yes, and Academic consensus is no guarantee of being correct. But in the absence of convincing arguments to the contrary, I'll stick with the consensus.

Yes, I know that. It may be news to you, but nothing new to me.

OK then. Education is a good thing.

This assertion is not dispositive of anything.

OK, but it doesn't fill me with confidence in Carrier's hypothesis if he can't convince the experts.

While Jesus may be a topic in Religious Studies, this figure doesn't have much meaning in any history course taught at university.

Like this one at Yale?:



Dale Martin teaches a History course at Yale University which deals with the HJ question.

I think you'll find Robin Lane Fox teaches a similar one at Oxford.

As far as I know, those are still considered to be fairly good Universities...

Wit, intelligence, and some study. How about you?

Me too! What a coincidence...

I was hoping you might have a persuasive argument for a MJ, I haven't seen one yet.

Any hypothesis that falls apart under critical questions might be in need of some reassessment.

Indeed. The MJ hypothesis hasn't jumped the first hurdle in that particular steeple chase just yet.

Any story which relies on its status as 'official' for its credibility would appear to be lacking in the area of its persuasiveness in the evidentiary department.

Lucky the HJ position has persuaded thousands of Scholars then, unlike the MJ idea.

Seriously ask some of the Jewish Scholars what they think. I doubt they are biased in favour of Jesus...

 

[proudfootz]

I haven't met an MJ proponent who has studied History, have you?

It would appear that many have, as they present quite a bit of familiarity with evidence from history.

I've heard of Richard Carrier of course, but even he seems less than confident in the idea, judging by his blog.

Hm. Dr Carrier talks about this topic being a controversy being debated among 'experts' - hardly sounds as sure as evolution or the reality of the Holocaust.

Yes, and Academic consensus is no guarantee of being correct. But in the absence of convincing arguments to the contrary, I'll stick with the consensus.

No problem there. I think the existence of an historical Jesus is a possibility.

Not sure how doubting something that is only a possibility is in any way irrational, though.

OK then. Education is a good thing.

Of course!

...and presuming that the only reason to doubt something dubious is somehow uneducated is just a dumb move.

OK, but it doesn't fill me with confidence in Carrier's hypothesis if he can't convince the experts.

As you become better acquainted with the pursuit of knowledge you will learn that a longstanding hegemony of thought isn't always overturned in the blink of an eye. What it usually takes is for the old guard to die off so that better informed scholars can take their tenured positions.

Like this one at Yale?:

Dale Martin teaches a History course at Yale University which deals with the HJ question.

Good one!

Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies
B.S., Abilene Christian University;
M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary;
Ph.D., Yale University

I think you'll find Robin Lane Fox teaches a similar one at Oxford.

I have no problem with someone holding the opinion there might well have been a person behind the myth. The question is, on what grounds?

As far as I know, those are still considered to be fairly good Universities...

Maybe not quite up to snuff with Moody Bible College, Bart Ehrman's alma mater...

Me too! What a coincidence...

Not clear why that requires eyerolling...

I was hoping you might have a persuasive argument for a MJ, I haven't seen one yet.

All that is required is a positive argument for a 'real Jesus' - none forthcoming so far.

Indeed. The MJ hypothesis hasn't jumped the first hurdle in that particular steeple chase just yet.

No need for a lot of academic papers disproving Bigfoot either.

I don't feel required to believe in Bigfoot due to an absurd reversal of the burden of evidence...

Lucky the HJ position has persuaded thousands of Scholars then, unlike the MJ idea.

Yippee! Let's jump on the bandwagon and never mind any persuasive evidence!

Seriously ask some of the Jewish Scholars what they think. I doubt they are biased in favour of Jesus...

Why should they not be biased? Like us they live in a culture steeped in Jesus for a couple thousand years.

 

[proudfootz]

Doggone duplicate post!

 

[Brainache]

It would appear that many have, as they present quite a bit of familiarity with evidence from history.

Not in any of the threads on this site they don't.

They seem to be familiar with a few "controversial" talking points mentioned in you tube videos, but things like textual analysis and palaeography are complete mysteries to them.

Maybe you could give an example of some MJ Historical analysis. All I seem to see is: "I demand concrete evidence" and: "It's all fake"

Hm. Dr Carrier talks about this topic being a controversy being debated among 'experts' - hardly sounds as sure as evolution or the reality of the Holocaust.

Not widely debated. He is trying to put it on the agenda, but every Historian that I know of who has looked at it has said it has no merit.

Do you have an example of any Historian anywhere who thinks it makes sense?

Carrier apparently is arguing for a very early "High Christology" which as far as I can tell is completely unevidenced.

The HJ hypothesis has at least a little bit of circumstantial evidence, but the MJ has no evidence at all that I know of.

Again: What have you got besides personal incredulity?

No problem there. I think the existence of an historical Jesus is a possibility.

Not sure how doubting something that is only a possibility is in any way irrational, though.

Because they doubt it without first understanding the arguments.

We have posters here who have stated that they believe the MJ idea purely because they believe it will destroy Christianity. These posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they are unfamiliar with the study of History.

Of course!

...and presuming that the only reason to doubt something dubious is somehow uneducated is just a dumb move.

Who is presuming?

I'm not saying it is the only reason, personal bias plays a big role too.

But when people just ignore arguments they can't refute, time and time again, its starts to get a bit annoying.

As you become better acquainted with the pursuit of knowledge you will learn that a longstanding hegemony of thought isn't always overturned in the blink of an eye. What it usually takes is for the old guard to die off so that better informed scholars can take their tenured positions.

Well, these "better informed Scholars" could publish books full of their better information and convince people that way. Why aren't they doing that?

Of the MJ books published so far, they all seem to be full of shoddy Scholarship and half-baked speculations.

Where is all of this compelling info?

Good one!

Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies
B.S., Abilene Christian University;
M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary;
Ph.D., Yale University

Hi is also a Gay Activist. What is your point?

Ad Hom much?

I have no problem with someone holding the opinion there might well have been a person behind the myth. The question is, on what grounds?

Well, the answer to that can be found through studying the subject. People who study the subject and write books about it come to conclude that there was most likely a HJ.

If you want them to not think that, you'll have to come up with something persuasive.

Again: What have you got? Let's see your persuasive MJ argument. We are all waiting...

Maybe not quite up to snuff with Moody Bible College, Bart Ehrman's alma mater...

Ha ha ha, another ad hom... great.

Not clear why that requires eyerolling...

Because I was asking for an argument in favour of the MJ, but you just dodged.

All that is required is a positive argument for a 'real Jesus' - none forthcoming so far.

You're kidding right? You don't really think that all the History students who study it and all of the Professors who teach it, do so on faith?

You don't think that if a Historian publishes a book full of bad reasoning, that no one will tear it to shreds?

Do you think Historians go around agreeing with each other all the time for no reason?

No need for a lot of academic papers disproving Bigfoot either.

I don't feel required to believe in Bigfoot due to an absurd reversal of the burden of evidence...

Exactly how I feel about the MJ. There is no evidence for the early high Christology posited by Carrier. Carrier wants me to accept an entire cult based on worshipping a "Celestial Jesus" that is nowhere in evidence. Why should anyone accept that?

Yippee! Let's jump on the bandwagon and never mind any persuasive evidence!

Except for all of the persuasive evidence that Jesus wasn't a "Celestial Being", but a flesh and blood human. Yeah...

Why should they not be biased? Like us they live in a culture steeped in Jesus for a couple thousand years.

Because Christianity has persecuted them for thousands of years in the name of this Jesus bloke, maybe?

Maybe you could look to the Mishnah and the Talmud to see what the Ancient Jews at the time thought about this Nazorean called Jesus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

In the first few centuries CE, there were many sects of Judaism (such as Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees) each claiming to be the correct faith.[19] Some scholars treat Christianity, during that era, referred to as Early Christianity, as simply one of many sects of Judaism.[20] Some sects wrote polemics advocating their position, and occasionally disparaging rival sects. Some scholars view the depictions of Jesus in the Talmud as a manifestation of those inter-sect rivalries – thus the depictions can be read as polemics by the rabbinic authors of the Talmud which indirectly criticized the rival sect (Christianity), which was growing and becoming more dominant.[21]

Relationship to New Testament[edit]
Peter Schäfer concluded that the references were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period.[22] He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death"[23] and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[24]

By way of comparison the New Testament itself also documents conflict with rabbinical Judaism, for example in the John 8:41 charge "We are not born of fornication."[25] and "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"[26] and in return in the description in Revelation of a "synagogue of Satan."[27]

But if you want to know what I think, read this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

 

[GDon]

Hm. Dr Carrier talks about this topic being a controversy being debated among 'experts' - hardly sounds as sure as evolution or the reality of the Holocaust.

But Ehrman never said the evidence was "as sure" as the reality of the Holocaust. This is what he wrote in the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that [there are people who think that] the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization... Jesus never even existed?​

A charitible reading would be: In a society where people deny things with undeniable evidence for them (e.g. the Holocaust), is it any surprise to learn that there are people who deny the existence of Jesus?

In other words, Ehrman was not equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus, but saying the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger, thus no surprise that there are people who disbelieve other things.

 

[proudfootz]

more of the same old from HJer

Not in any of the threads on this site they don't.

They seem to be familiar with a few "controversial" talking points mentioned in you tube videos, but things like textual analysis and palaeography are complete mysteries to them.

Then it would appear you are unfamiliar with the scholarship behind this going back a hundred years or more.

Maybe you could give an example of some MJ Historical analysis. All I seem to see is: "I demand concrete evidence" and: "It's all fake"

If that is all you seem to see, perhaps ypou should have your eyes checked?

Not widely debated. He is trying to put it on the agenda, but every Historian that I know of who has looked at it has said it has no merit.

So, you know a lot of historians?

Do you have an example of any Historian anywhere who thinks it makes sense?

Funny you should ask this after quoting historian Dr Richard Carrier...

Carrier apparently is arguing for a very early "High Christology" which as far as I can tell is completely unevidenced.

It was my impression that the Pauline epistles are considered among the very earliest examples of christian literature - the guy who thinks Jesus helped God create the universe and then took on the likeness of a human so demons could kill him.

Doesn't sound much like the 'historical Jesus' invented in the 19th century.

The HJ hypothesis has at least a little bit of circumstantial evidence, but the MJ has no evidence at all that I know of.

Good thing the debate doesn't hinge on what you do or do not know, isn't it?

Again: What have you got besides personal incredulity?

Nothing personal about it.

In the absence of good arguments that a 'real Jesus' existed, like any rational person I retain the null hypothesis: not proven.

BTW - I'm also unpersuaded about the Loch Ness Monster, the Jersey Devil, and that UFOs are alien space ships. Do I need someone with a PhD to publish papers proving negatives on those, too?

Because they doubt it without first understanding the arguments.

You haven't shown that anyone doesn't 'understand' the arguments.

Instead of attacking 'MJers' why not present some positive arguments or evidence?

Have any?

We have posters here who have stated that they believe the MJ idea purely because they believe it will destroy Christianity. These posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they are unfamiliar with the study of History.

We have posters here who think that doubters of the historicity of Bible heroes will burn down the universities.

We have posters who take it on faith that the only reason some doubt dubious Bible heroes is because of their (alleged) anti-christian bias.

So what?

Who is presuming?

You seemed a bit presumptuous when you idiotically posed the question about whether I knew about 'universities'.

Don't act like a jerk.

I'm not saying it is the only reason, personal bias plays a big role too.

Maybe it does. Peple might be biased toward an HJ hypothesis as in the English-speaking world we are inundated with Jesus even 2014 years since the birth of Jesus.

But when people just ignore arguments they can't refute, time and time again, its starts to get a bit annoying.

Indeed.

But enough about HJers. Let's get down to these irrefutable arguments you claim to have seen put forward...

Well, these "better informed Scholars" could publish books full of their better information and convince people that way. Why aren't they doing that?

So, you imagine no work on MJ has been published?

Boy, you've a lot of catching up to do!

Of the MJ books published so far, they all seem to be full of shoddy Scholarship and half-baked speculations.

According to whom? You?

Where is all of this compelling info?

Yes, where is all this 'compelling info' about the certainty of a 'real Jesus'?

Hi is also a Gay Activist. What is your point?

My point was about people who teach Bible studies - or don't you remember?

Ad Hom much?

I could never compete with you on that score...

Well, the answer to that can be found through studying the subject. People who study the subject and write books about it come to conclude that there was most likely a HJ.

Bart Ehrman is on record as claiming that his book was the first to put forward a full argument for an HJ.

So there's one - and honestly, it is more persuasive of an MJ hypothesis.

If you want them to not think that, you'll have to come up with something persuasive.

...and if the Bible Studies professionals want someone to believe in their Jesus they will have to come up with something persuasive.

The time for 'real Jesus' advocates to keep reversing the burden of proof is long past.

Again: What have you got? Let's see your persuasive MJ argument. We are all waiting...

All I am arguing is that on a point which is only a matter of 'possibility' or 'plausibility' it is irrational to claim 'Jesus certainly existed' as so many HJers are prone to do.

Ha ha ha, another ad hom... great.

You're the one who seems to think it makes a big difference which college someone attended or gets a paycheck from.

Ad Hom is your wheelhouse!

Because I was asking for an argument in favour of the MJ, but you just dodged.

I'd happily debate the point - but as you seem to think the 'pro-HJ' position is so strong I will leave it to you to make the first contribution.

(HINT: start with your strongest piece of evidence for an HJ - and, no, how many people believe as you do is not evidence.)

You're kidding right? You don't really think that all the History students who study it and all of the Professors who teach it, do so on faith?

Until someone actually produces an argument neither of us knows why they believe as they do.

I can't blindly assume they have some killer argument they are keeping secret from the rest of us.

You don't think that if a Historian publishes a book full of bad reasoning, that no one will tear it to shreds?

This is all so vague - which 'historian' has published their argument for their version of an 'historic Jesus' and what are the three main pieces of evidence supporting that assertion?

Do you think Historians go around agreeing with each other all the time for no reason?

It doesn't matter what you or I think - where is the evidence?

Exactly how I feel about the MJ. There is no evidence for the early high Christology posited by Carrier. Carrier wants me to accept an entire cult based on worshipping a "Celestial Jesus" that is nowhere in evidence. Why should anyone accept that?

You'd have to actually read what Carrier argues and the evidence he puts forth. Where is there any evidence you've done this?

Except for all of the persuasive evidence that Jesus wasn't a "Celestial Being", but a flesh and blood human. Yeah...

Paul for example tells us he gets his facts about his godman from scripture not from historical research.

Real persuasive!

Because Christianity has persecuted them for thousands of years in the name of this Jesus bloke, maybe?

Yep. People get persecuted in the name of Jesus, in the name of Allah, or whatever. None of that is evidence of an historical Allah or an historical Jesus.

Maybe you could look to the Mishnah and the Talmud to see what the Ancient Jews at the time thought about this Nazorean called Jesus...

Been there, done that.

Not persuasive.

Even HJ hero Bart Ehran dismisses that crap. He presents his views as that of the 'consensus' - is he lying?

But if you want to know what I think, read this thread:

Paul is an interesting character.

But as he evinces no interest in an HJ that discussion belongs in a different thread...

 

[Craig B]

Maybe not quite up to snuff with Moody Bible College, Bart Ehrman's alma mater...

You presumably know his educational history after he abandoned fundamentalism, but on the improbable assumption that you're arguing from mere ignorance and not malice, here it is.

Ehrman ... began studying the Bible and its original languages at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned their three-year diploma in 1976. He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelors degree. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

 

[dejudge]

But Ehrman never said the evidence was "as sure" as the reality of the Holocaust. This is what he wrote in the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that [there are people who think that] the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization... Jesus never even existed?​

A charitible reading would be: In a society where people deny things with undeniable evidence for them (e.g. the Holocaust), is it any surprise to learn that there are people who deny the existence of Jesus?

In other words, Ehrman was not equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus, but saying the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger, thus no surprise that there are people who disbelieve other things.

Why are you "redacting" what Ehrman said?

In the passage you quoted Ehrman did NOT say that the evidence for the Holocast was stronger---You made it up.

Ehrman is not credible he poses as an historian when he is not while he questions and ridicules others about their qualifications.

Ehrman has NO evidence from antiquity that there was a Jesus of Nazareth and that he was the greatest figure unless he is NOT aware of the God of the Jews.

The God of the Jews is the greatest figure in the Western World.

Jesus, if he did exist, was the world greatest Idiot and his story was propagated by Illiterates, Liars and Wizards.

 

[proudfootz]

You presumably know his educational history after he abandoned fundamentalism, but on the improbable assumption that you're arguing from mere ignorance and not malice, here it is.

I just find it very interesting when people try to argue about the colleges people attend or work at as being some sort of argument about the soundness of their beliefs.

AFAICT whether or not Ehrman ever graduated high school it matters not one whit as to whether his arguments are sound or not.

Instead of that I've been reading his books.

 

[proudfootz]

Why are you "redacting" what Ehrman said?

In the passage you quoted Ehrman did NOT say that the evidence for the Holocast was stronger---You made it up.

Ehrman is not credible he poses as an historian when he is not while he questions and ridicules others about their qualifications.

Ehrman has NO evidence from antiquity that there was a Jesus of Nazareth and that he was the greatest figure unless he is NOT aware of the God of the Jews.

The God of the Jews is the greatest figure in the Western World.

Jesus, if he did exist, was the world greatest Idiot and his story was propagated by Illiterates, Liars and Wizards.

The 'Holocaust denier' meme is important to Ehrman - he repeats it in the intro to his Did Jesus Exist? book as well.

Trying to link scholarly skepticism about something that is only 'plausible' or 'possible' with an emotional issue like the Holocaust is a cheap rhetorical flourish that wins him fans among the less perceptive hoi polloi.

It is unworthy of someone who wants to be taken seriously. Going Godwin on a topic from the start just doesn't bode well...

 

[pakeha]

...I think you'll find Robin Lane Fox teaches a similar one at Oxford. ...

This Robin Lane Fox?
"...Robin, who had a cameo role in Oliver Stone’s flop Alexander, did himself no favours with his critics by asserting in the same review that his ‘worst nightmare’ is to be turned into a woman.

‘If a vengeful flower fairy realises my worst nightmare and turns me into a woman, I will choose to wear flowery dresses,’ he wrote.

‘It would be everybody else’s worst nightmare,’ Robin said yesterday. ‘I don’t want to be a woman.’ "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...Martha-Lane-Foxs-Oxford-professor-father.html

 

[Brainache]

Then it would appear you are unfamiliar with the scholarship behind this going back a hundred years or more.

I'm aware of the radical Dutch Scholars. I'm also aware that their ideas don't have much support these days.

If that is all you seem to see, perhaps ypou should have your eyes checked?

No one's been posting them here. What have you got?

So, you know a lot of historians?

I know of a lot of them. There have been several in these very threads, but they usually leave after the MJ people start insulting them.

Funny you should ask this after quoting historian Dr Richard Carrier...

That's one. Who has he persuaded? I mean apart from you.

It was my impression that the Pauline epistles are considered among the very earliest examples of christian literature - the guy who thinks Jesus helped God create the universe and then took on the likeness of a human so demons could kill him.

Doesn't sound much like the 'historical Jesus' invented in the 19th century.

That would be the Jesus who had a Brother alive in Jerusalem at the time. The Jesus who passed out bread and wine, made little speeches and handed out teachings on divorce etc that Paul described.

Paul also tells people a load of Mystical BS to sell them his dead Messiah meme. So what?

Good thing the debate doesn't hinge on what you do or do not know, isn't it?

Here would have been a good place for your evidence. Where is it?

Nothing personal about it.

In the absence of good arguments that a 'real Jesus' existed, like any rational person I retain the null hypothesis: not proven.

You think the null hypothesis is that Christianity started without a Christ? How does that work?

BTW - I'm also unpersuaded about the Loch Ness Monster, the Jersey Devil, and that UFOs are alien space ships. Do I need someone with a PhD to publish papers proving negatives on those, too?

Maybe you can tell me what is it about a first century Jewish Rabbi that makes him similar to a UFO or the Loch Ness Monster...

Because no one is arguing for a magical son of God, just a fanatic preacher who got killed by the powers that be.

You haven't shown that anyone doesn't 'understand' the arguments.

Instead of attacking 'MJers' why not present some positive arguments or evidence?


Have any?

The evidence has been presented many times in this thread and others. I'm not jumping through hoops to present it again.

Go read a book about it.

We have posters here who think that doubters of the historicity of Bible heroes will burn down the universities.

Do we? How lucky we are to live in such a diverse world.

We have posters who take it on faith that the only reason some doubt dubious Bible heroes is because of their (alleged) anti-christian bias.

Really? I've seen IanS make that very statement, no faith involved.

So what?

I'm still waiting for a qualified Historian who agrees with Carrier. Got any?

You seemed a bit presumptuous when you idiotically posed the question about whether I knew about 'universities'.

Don't act like a jerk.

Right back at ya hotshot.

Maybe it does. Peple might be biased toward an HJ hypothesis as in the English-speaking world we are inundated with Jesus even 2014 years since the birth of Jesus.

And? You think that means that out of thousands of Scholars, there is only one clear thinker?

All the rest are blinded by faith in Jesus? A bit insulting, don't you think?

Indeed.

But enough about HJers. Let's get down to these irrefutable arguments you claim to have seen put forward...

Who said "irrefutable"? Not me. I'm asking for a refutation of the Scholarship. Got one?

So, you imagine no work on MJ has been published?

Boy, you've a lot of catching up to do!

See, this is where you should post a reference or link to some of this persuasive MJ Scholarship. Why are you hiding it? Where is it?

According to whom? You?

According to the Historians who dismiss it as such. Look it up.

Yes, where is all this 'compelling info' about the certainty of a 'real Jesus'?

When did I say it was more than the most probable answer to the question of the origins of Christianity? Where did I talk about "Certainty"?

My point was about people who teach Bible studies - or don't you remember?

What point? That Bible studies is a part of History? I agree.

That everyone who studies the Bible believes it is the word of God? I disagree.

The bible is where most of the surviving writings about Jesus were compiled, why on earth wouldn't they study it?

Would you trust a Civil War Historian who didn't read about the Civil War?

I could never compete with you on that score...

Really? You come in here attacking peoples credentials and totally ignore all of the Scholarship, yet think I'm the one arguing ad homs? Really?

Bart Ehrman is on record as claiming that his book was the first to put forward a full argument for an HJ.

So there's one - and honestly, it is more persuasive of an MJ hypothesis.

Why are the MJ crowd so obsessed with this Ehrman bloke? I haven't read his book, I don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

...and if the Bible Studies professionals want someone to believe in their Jesus they will have to come up with something persuasive.

The time for 'real Jesus' advocates to keep reversing the burden of proof is long past.

OK, now I know you are trolling.

All I am arguing is that on a point which is only a matter of 'possibility' or 'plausibility' it is irrational to claim 'Jesus certainly existed' as so many HJers are prone to do.



You're the one who seems to think it makes a big difference which college someone attended or gets a paycheck from.

Ad Hom is your wheelhouse!

I don't care which Uni they attend or teach at. All Universities that teach the subject, teach HJ, so it doesn't matter which.

I'd happily debate the point - but as you seem to think the 'pro-HJ' position is so strong I will leave it to you to make the first contribution.

(HINT: start with your strongest piece of evidence for an HJ - and, no, how many people believe as you do is not evidence.)

You are a bit late to the party here buddy. It's been done. I'm not repeating the thread again for you, you can read it all here. It hasn't gone anywhere.

Until someone actually produces an argument neither of us knows why they believe as they do.

I can't blindly assume they have some killer argument they are keeping secret from the rest of us.

Yes they keep them hidden inside mysterious objects called "Books".

Try Robin Lane Craig... Or if you want a more controversial idea, try Robert Eisenman.

This is all so vague - which 'historian' has published their argument for their version of an 'historic Jesus' and what are the three main pieces of evidence supporting that assertion?

Again? You could at least make an effort to familiarise yourself with the subject before you leap in mouth first.

It doesn't matter what you or I think - where is the evidence?

In the textual analyses. Get busy, it's a big subject...

You'd have to actually read what Carrier argues and the evidence he puts forth. Where is there any evidence you've done this?

I'm still waiting for the book he promised us last February. I've seen his lecture where he argues for an early high Christology, which goes against all the evidence I've seen for a progression from Low Christology to high.

Paul for example tells us he gets his facts about his godman from scripture not from historical research.

Real persuasive!

Except for all the interacting he does with Jesus' brother and other followers. Why would he be doing historical research? What a bizarre claim.

Yep. People get persecuted in the name of Jesus, in the name of Allah, or whatever. None of that is evidence of an historical Allah or an historical Jesus.

Kind of missing the point that Jews would jump on any evidence that Jesus didn't exist. They haven't done that.

Been there, done that.

Not persuasive.

Even HJ hero Bart Ehran dismisses that crap. He presents his views as that of the 'consensus' - is he lying?

I don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

You don't think the Ancient Rabbis might have mentioned the fact that Jesus was just a mystical cult figure who had no earthly existence, even though people were killing them in his name?

OK.

Paul is an interesting character.

But as he evinces no interest in an HJ that discussion belongs in a different thread...

If you read that thread, it might save you a lot of time asking me for evidence that I have already provided there. It isn't all about Paul.

Mostly that thread is about The Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to early Christianity.

Read it and save me the grief of having to type it all again, just for you.

 

[Craig B]

I just find it very interesting when people try to argue about the colleges people attend or work at as being some sort of argument about the soundness of their beliefs.

Do you include people like yourself who started this conversation by writing this?

Maybe not quite up to snuff with Moody Bible College, Bart Ehrman's alma mater...

Glad to read this

Instead of that I've been reading his books.

I'm sure some others have done that too. Interesting if yet again disquieting to see yet another addition to the vehemence and hostility that appears to characterise the proponents of the viewpoint you have embraced.

 

[proudfootz]

I'm aware of the radical Dutch Scholars. I'm also aware that their ideas don't have much support these days.

Good to know that basing one's ideas on a perceived notion of a temporary 'consensus' of scholars is building on a foundation of shifting sands!

No one's been posting them here. What have you got?

As I said, I'd happily debate any 'evidence' you imagine to be persuasive.

Since you're taking the 'pro' side the burden of proof lies on you.

Go!

I know of a lot of them. There have been several in these very threads, but they usually leave after the MJ people start insulting them.

It's rather unfortunate that people take to insulting one another. Take a gander at insults aimed at perceived MJers sometime - it's non-stop mudslinging!

That would be the Jesus who had a Brother alive in Jerusalem at the time. The Jesus who passed out bread and wine, made little speeches and handed out teachings on divorce etc that Paul described.

This would be the same Paul who wrote about 500 brothers seeing the ghost Jesus? Who takes trips to various levels of heaven? Who met the resurrected Jesus?

Really persuasive, there.

Paul also tells people a load of Mystical BS to sell them his dead Messiah meme. So what?

I agree. Paul is full of crap. So what?

This is your best shot?

Here would have been a good place for your evidence. Where is it?

You think the null hypothesis is that Christianity started without a Christ? How does that work?

Until there's evidence of a real Jesus behind the Christ, we're going to have to be satisfied with the verdict Not Proven.

Just like until there is evidence of Bigfoot we'll have to be happy with the conclusion it hasn't been proven.

Maybe you can tell me what is it about a first century Jewish Rabbi that makes him similar to a UFO or the Loch Ness Monster...

You do know the 'historical Jesus' is an invention of the 19th century?

In the earliest literature Jesus appears in visions and revealed in scripture.

Because no one is arguing for a magical son of God, just a fanatic preacher who got killed by the powers that be.

None of the early literature about Jesus is about that stuff -it's about a godman. Have you not read any of this stuff?

The evidence has been presented many times in this thread and others. I'm not jumping through hoops to present it again.

OK. Don't discuss it then. But don't whine that I don't address arguments you are too lazy to make.

Go read a book about it.

Have done. Several.

Do we? How lucky we are to live in such a diverse world.

Yup. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your version.

Really? I've seen IanS make that very statement, no faith involved.

If you say so...

Who said "irrefutable"? Not me. I'm asking for a refutation of the Scholarship. Got one?

What scholarship?

That's right, someone allegedly posted evidence once upon a time, somewhere. Supposedly.

See, this is where you should post a reference or link to some of this persuasive HJ Scholarship. Why are you hiding it? Where is it?

When did I say it was more than the most probable answer to the question of the origins of Christianity? Where did I talk about "Certainty"?

It was Bart Ehrman, representing himself as speaking for this alleged 'consensus' who bandies about the word 'certainty'. Look it up!

Really? You come in here attacking peoples credentials and totally ignore all of the Scholarship, yet think I'm the one arguing ad homs? Really?

Whose alleged credentials did I attack?

You seem to be the one obsessed with credentials.

Why are the MJ crowd so obsessed with this Ehrman bloke? I haven't read his book, I don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

Good for you!

On the other hand, he is one of the 'scholars' who supposedly support this alleged 'consensus' everyone blathers on about.

You'd think having a named scholar whose published arguments can be discussed would be of interest instead of airily talking about anonymous scholars who are made some argument and presented some evidence which no one can be bothered to cite.

Try Robin Lane Craig...

Do you mean William Lane Craig?

Can't track down Robin.

Or if you want a more controversial idea, try Robert Eisenman.

Interesting! Rather than a 'consensus' scholar we get someone whose ideas are reportedly 'bizarre' and 'idiosyncratic'.

And you led me to believe this Jesus stuff was cut and dried!

You could at least make an effort to familiarise yourself with the subject before you leap in mouth first.

Now I know you are trolling.

I'm still waiting for the book he promised us last February. I've seen his lecture where he argues for an early high Christology, which goes against all the evidence I've seen for a progression from Low Christology to high.

So you don't accept the 'consensus' opinion that Paul is an example of the earliest Christology? Interesting!

Except for all the interacting he does with Jesus' brother...

You mean 'the brother of The Lord', right? It doesn't help when you twist the text to fit your agenda.

and other followers.

Followers like himself who probably never met any Jesus in real life...

Why would he be doing historical research? What a bizarre claim.

Just trying to set some sort of standard for whether a guy who has visions, travels to heaven, and converses with spirits is a reliable source of information.

Kind of missing the point that Jews would jump on any evidence that Jesus didn't exist. They haven't done that.

How would there be evidence of non-existence? A Jesus-shaped hole?

If something doesn't exist it's the sort of thing for which there is no evidence.

As for me I don't pretend to know for a fact what 'the Jews' would do.

But do go on with your baseless speculating - it's fascinating!

I don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks.

Of course not. He's a bona fide member of the consensus.

You don't think the Ancient Rabbis might have mentioned the fact that Jesus was just a mystical cult figure who had no earthly existence, even though people were killing them in his name?

How would they know whether someone lived or didn't a couple of hundred years in the past? You seem to be rather confused about the time period.

Paul is an interesting character.

But as he evinces no interest in an HJ that discussion belongs in a different thread...

If you read that thread, it might save you a lot of time asking me for evidence that I have already provided there. It isn't all about Paul.

Mostly that thread is about The Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to early Christianity.

Read it and save me the grief of having to type it all again, just for you.

Sheesh. I'll give it a go.

19 pages seems like a long slog in hopes that tucked in there somewhere is some evidence pertinent to this thread...

 

[proudfootz]

Do you include people like yourself who started this conversation by writing this?

Check out the post I was responding to!

Glad to read this I'm sure some others have done that too. Interesting if yet again disquieting to see yet another addition to the vehemence and hostility that appears to characterise the proponents of the viewpoint you have embraced.

People on all sides have been vehement and hostile.

Pretending it lies only on one side is rather disingenuous.

 

[proudfootz]

This Robin Lane Fox?
"...Robin, who had a cameo role in Oliver Stone’s flop Alexander, did himself no favours with his critics by asserting in the same review that his ‘worst nightmare’ is to be turned into a woman.

‘If a vengeful flower fairy realises my worst nightmare and turns me into a woman, I will choose to wear flowery dresses,’ he wrote.

‘It would be everybody else’s worst nightmare,’ Robin said yesterday. ‘I don’t want to be a woman.’ "

Apparently the person is not Robin Lane Craig, but Robin Lane Fox of Oxford.

He apparently goes against the scholarly consensus in thinking the 'Gospel According to John' might actually have been written by the disciple of Jesus!

 

[Brainache]

I misspoke earlier.

I meant this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lane_Fox

Robin James Lane Fox, FRSL (born 5 October 1946[1]) is an English historian of antiquity and a gardening writer.[2]

Lane Fox is an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford. Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College from 1977 to 2012, he serves as Garden Master and as Extraordinary Lecturer in Ancient History for both New and Exeter Colleges. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history.[3][4]

His major publications, for which he has won literary prizes including the James Tait Black Award,[5] the Duff Cooper Prize,[6] the W.H. Heinemann Award[7] and the Runciman Award,[8] include studies of Alexander the Great and Ancient Macedon, Late Antiquity, Christianity and Paganism,[9] the Bible and history, and the Greek Dark Ages.

Talk to him about how persuasive Richard Carrier is.

 

[Brainache]

...

Sheesh. I'll give it a go.

19 pages seems like a long slog in hopes that tucked in there somewhere is some evidence pertinent to this thread...

Well, sorry I didn't type them all out for you again...

But you could read this thread, but it is 86 pages long and the other one is even longer, so I guess my Herodian thread is the easy option.

It also has less bickering than most threads, if you don't count dejudge's ignorant intrusions.

 

[proudfootz]

I misspoke earlier.

I meant this guy...

Talk to him about how persuasive Richard Carrier is.

Sure, when is he coming here?