Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Twilight - sorry, I don't see someone engaging in apologetics for their own personal faith as "apologetics" for other positions, which is why we usually reserve the term uniquely for religious apologetics. There's a level of personal investiture. We'll have to disagree there. I certainly didn't intend it in a demeaning way toward anyone.

Ah. So once again, you have a double standard. Religious positions are to be treated differently from atheist positions. I see. I see. Note in fact that the term "apology" at the start still had zip to do with religion. It was what one prepared when going to court.

As for Carrier, I take him at his word that he came into the field with the initial belief that Jesus was probably a real person, but no vested interest either way. (Similar to myself.) If you don't, you're entitled, but then you'd have a hard time convincing me you've given him a fair reading.

No problem, but is that the reason today? That's the real question. Today, he as well definitely has a vested interest. Since there have been several in the scholarly community calling him out and several in the non-expert community, such as EZ PZ, cheering him on, perhaps he has a vested interest also?

[QUOTE] @Twilight - if we're not arbitrarily choosing who is and isn't authoritative, than come up with a better refutation of Carrier's thesis than "Ehrman says Carrier is discredited." Do you not see what you've done there? It would be the same as trying to discredit a global warming critic simply by saying "Michael Mann says that guy's a crank." It's a lousy argument. [/QUOTE}

If only I had ever used that argument. No. I say the scholarly community as a whole says Carrier is wrong and Ehrman is just a representative of that community who's taken a time to write a book on the matter.

Beyond that, we'd get into a long face-off over credentials and bias, along the lines of "Carrier never worked in academia, and Ehrman has." "So? Because Ehrman has a career in academia, he has institutional bias," and so on, ad nauseum.

I'm not the one using bias as an argument. You are.

@Twilight - you seem to have a thing for intiating tit-for-tats over minutia, seemingly for red herrings. December 25 - do you want to go with Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, Polycarp...? How much time do we have? Here's the point: the things we now consider consensus were at one time considered "fringe." Every deviation from what was the accepted Christian view starts somewhere. Pick a different example if it suits you.

No. The charge of Sol Invictus and Saturnalia comes from later. Actually, the Jewish belief was that a prophet left the world the same day he came into it and if Jesus died in the time of around March, which is perfectly reasonable, then he would have been born on the day he died (Different year of course) nine months later. I just like picking you apart on what you claim to be common knowledge.

@Twilight - yes, today's proponents are certainly not the first. But there is clearly a new openness of skepticism, that would not have happened during the World Wars / Cold War era. Do you believe that if a qualified academic had doubts about Historical Jesus, he could have gotten any audience at all in the anti-Communist 50's? The Moral Majority 80's? On one hand, the web allows for a lot of crackpots, but on the other hand, it has brought a whole wave of open inquiry that was kept under wraps out into the open. We like academic freedom, right?

Wow. You just seem to assume that all the scholarship takes place here in America. Not at all. You're leaving out Germany and France. You also think the scholarship community would care about the Moral Majority? It's not that skepticism is at a high. It's that ignorance is.

[QUOTE] @Twilight - please, let's not even begin to compare the case for evolution to the case for historical Jesus. Do we really want to draw a comparison between millions of fossils, radiometric dating, DNA analysis, the geologic column, molecular biology, vestigial structures, pseudogenes, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria vs. a small sampling of letters written by unknown religious fanatics, about someone they never met, decades after that person supposedly lived? (I don't mean "fanatics" in an offensive sense, I mean it academically.) [/QUOTE}

Well, you can say we have all of that, but do you see how many people there are, and some in academia even, who disagree? Obviously the consensus is not in or else everyone would agree.

@Twilight, per Ehrman: "It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day... Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate. It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line." Ehrman's words, and a preface to the argument made solely from the NT.

Reference for this?

@Twilight, Alexander is mentioned in thousands of documents, has momuments in his honor, records from conquered Egyptians, his likeness on coins, the Maccabees... if ONLY we had ANYTHING like that in the case of Jesus, there would be no question. (I apologize that I don't follow your comment about oral tradition.)

Okay. Let's go through this. I could say the exact same thing in many ways about Zeus and of course some people would talk about Alexander since he conquered the world in his 30's and was born of a virgin. Sounds like a great myth to me.

Tell you what. Find me the earliest document you can talking about Alexander.

@Twilight, how is affording higher scrutiny to people making claims of supernatural phenomena a "double standard?"

Simple. Whatever fits into your worldview gets accepted easier. Whatever goes against your worldview will have to have a higher standard.

It seems to me that in matters that don't involve one's own religion, it would simply be "common sense."

Your common sense is not accepted by the huge majority of the world that is theistic. What's common about it?

Not all claims are equal. I tell you I have a brother Dave, you have little reason to doubt me. I tell you I won Powerball five times, and you approach it with doubt. I tell you I know a guy who walked on water and rose from the dead, you think I might be nuts, and probably think there was no such person in reality, miracles or not. Common sense in any other context.

Interesting that the powerball isn't even a supernatural claim, whatever that means. Also, I would ask in each case to see the evidence. I do the same with miracle claims made today by Christians. I want to see the evidence.

@Twilight, I'm not claiming the populace would know this person never existed, that's a straw man, and is absurd. It only takes one person to convince others that the messiah came, was crucified, and disappeared. That person may even have convinced himself. From there, exponentiation.

Right. In an oral and agonistic society where word of mouth was tested regularly, I'm sure a claim was made that no one bothered to check out but then everyone suddenly found in their memories these events happening and then took on the most shameful position they could abandoning what was seen as the true way of YHWH.

Seems like a long shot? The LDS has grown to 14 million in 150 years, and its origin was Joseph Smith's lone word that he was visited by an angel who gave him some plates that no one else ever saw. And this was in what we consider "modern times." (Mormon apologists, anyone?)

And here comes the assumption that American society was just like the Biblical society. Not at all. This is quite easy to have happen in an age of individualism. In an age where all facts are checked by the populace before being accepted, it doesn't.

[jpholding]

I see Jones can't shake his addiction.

Too bad. He's used to being fawned over at places like HuffPo (where he's surely outnumbered even more) and now that he's someplace where someone questions him, it's got him rattled and acting the part of The Man Who Wouldn't Leave III.

Has he actually made an argument yet, or is he still whining BIAS APOLOGIST PREDETERMINED BIIIIASSS WAAAAAAHHH?

[Chrawnus]

Has he actually made an argument yet, or is he still whining BIAS APOLOGIST PREDETERMINED BIIIIASSS WAAAAAAHHH?

Well, he's saying other things too, but in terms of argumentative value they're just as useless.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ugh... too much bad logic to ignore...

Yeah, I'm sure you find scholarship 'bad logic' since you wouldn't know it if it was a bus getting ready to run you down.

Still arguing that the mainstream position is correct because it's the mainstream position.

Let me try this:

"Still arguing that Evolution is the main stream position and is therefore correct."

Guess I've been able to refute evolutionary theory too! I'm sure you're used to not having your bad logic pointed out, but that is yet another nail in the coffin to the Jesus Myth theory and one of many. The fact it isn't accepted by any main stream theologian or historian (and even refuted by a number of agnostic and atheist ones at that!) is an indication that the theory is all bunk and should be thrown into the dust bin of history. That is, unless you're willing to concede that creationist might have something (which I am not one, but I just bring this up to point out your errors).

Cherry-picking a single friendly source? Agreed that the archaeology on Hannibal is scant, no need to contest that. But we have detailed histories of the Punic Wars by Polybius and Livy. Are you seriously going to argue we'd debate Jesus's existence if Greek historians recorded the paths of his armies, and the impacts of his armies on European history could be verified in countless ways? Please, let's use our heads - that argument ranks up there with the worst of the crackpot mythicist arguments about Mithras.

Didn't read the link, did you? It's ok, I know fundy atheist do not bother to read cause that is already dealt with too. Polybius and Livy wrote about it centuries later. Didn't know that either? Well here is another bomb shell for your theory, the various Roman sources contradict one another on Hannibal's crossing of the alps. Didn't know that either? Guess not, so yet again, fundy atheist just don't learn now let us look at the story of Jesus and who confirms him: It is confirmed by 5 Christian authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul in the early first century. The Jews and Romans confirm his existence in their collected works that should refer to him. The early church fathers all confirm his existence and many of them said they met witnesses of the resurrection themselves. In fact, not a single Roman, Jewish, or Christian source confirms that Jesus never existed. Not a one, so where did this idea come from? As far as I can determine, the French Revolution is where the idea Jesus never existed comes from since much of it is based on rejecting established religious beliefs. Isn't it interesting that even though the Jews had an axe to grind against Christians they never said Jesus never existed? Isn't it interesting that even though Romans like Nero actively killed Christians, they too never said Jesus never existed? In fact, not a single source, from the ancient world says a thing about Jesus not existing and all of them continue to refer to him as a real historical figure. Yet, the same evidence that condemns Jesus as not existing, seems to be ok when applied to Hannibal, even when the accounts outright contradict one another and only come from two sources, from only one side. Goes to show that the Jesus myth applies uneven standards and fails to apply itself to other historical figures to see what you'd get.

I think you're missing that major publishers are going to publish the books that will sell the most. Mythicism is not popular reading. Hence, you have a variant of an argument from popularity: because mainstream scholarship sells more books, it is correct.

Awe, I see... so even though they publish anti-Christian works like The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, and Why God is not Great, they are just all bias when it comes to the Jesus myth theory. Of course, the other view is that Jesus mythers are like the AiG of the historical and theological world and are only taken seriously by a few crack pots and fringe scholars and their peers just brush them off as unimportant and spinning theories from the back waters of the web.

Well, for one, I don't have to keep falling back on insults.

Nah, you just need to keep falling back on fringe scholars who's work is not taken seriously by their atheist and agnostic peers.

Again, falling back on insults. No worries, it's just a sign of desperation. No, Sweden is not an argument from popularity - how can discussion of a small population amongst the entire Western World be an argument from popularity? Think. No, it's an argument about cultural context, if you go back and read more carefully. You red-herringed that very nicely. {Insert Reciprocal Snarky Comment about your debate skills here.}

Oh, it is an appeal to popularity cause you're saying, "DUH! THESE PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL OF THE HISTORICAL EXISTENCE OF JESUS!!!" eve though you haven't given any evidence for this assertion nor does a group of non-historians and non-experts prove your theory should be taken seriously, you just asserted it without evidence while I presented evidence for mine from somebody who IS an historian and who has earned awards from the Royal Society and is often referenced throughout the web and books, where yours hangs out on the back waters of the web who can't even get most of his atheist and agnostic peers to agree with him. Face it, the Christ Myth is a dead theory that is only kept alive on the back waters of the web. Likewise, I insult you cause you ignore where you are wrong at, make up excuses for your hero's, and refuse to back up your assertions with any sort of facts.

As for the authors you mention, they defend their own positions rather nicely, there's little need for me to repeat it for them. Their opinions are not contested.

Can't refute it, eh? It's ok, Richard Carrier has a hard time doing it too and often simply has to throw up a bunch of space filler to fool others into thinking he can.

Off to work... with one note. I did learn something here: I honestly had no idea that a self-identified apologist would take issue with my statements about the nature of apology. I wrongly assumed both an atheist and a religious apologist would agree on the definition of apologetics as presupposition. But I do see now how that could be taken as discrediting.

Still don't understand connotation vs denotation? It's ok, many people do not.

[Indy]

@Phoenix -

Ah. So once again, you have a double standard. Religious positions are to be treated differently from atheist positions. I see. I see.

...Are you really going to claim that faith plays no role in the industry of religious apologetics?

I think we both agree that each argument should be evaluated on its own merits, is that fair to say? So we can put that one to rest?

Actually, the Jewish belief was that a prophet left the world the same day he came into it and if Jesus died in the time of around March...

I thought Polycarp was the source of that calculation, from memory. I certainly could be wrong. My understanding is that there's not anything near a consensus on the reason for December 25. Don't think it merits a research project, for such a tangent. Point is, we now take many things for granted that at the time were contrary to the prevailing consensus. Do you dispute this?

You're leaving out Germany and France...

OK, I'll cede you have a point there. But I still don't buy your argument that this line of inquiry only exists because the Internet breeds crackpottery. The line of inquiry never went away, it simply gained a new audience - as has general atheism, non-mainstream Christian apologetics, open inquiry and critique of Islam, LDS, Scientology, Watchtower Society, etc.

Obviously, we won't look at this the same way. One person's Valid and Necessary Inquiry is another person's Wingnut Conspiracy. So, back to the evidence.

(Re: evidence for Evolution) Well, you can say we have all of that, but do you see how many people there are, and some in academia even, who disagree?

Of course, but then they have to have a convincing critique of the accepted consensus to back it up. Seems they've fallen short in that regard.

As for mythicists, my personal opinion is that they've been convincing in pointing out the inadequacy of the case for historicity - not so much so in supporting their alternate hypotheses. The same scarcity of evidence that impedes historicity also works against substantiation of the alternatives. There's a tendency, though, to throw the baby out with the bathwater: "Joe Mythicist hasn't made a compelling case for his alternate hypothesis, therefore, this proves historical Jesus." Not so.

Reference for this?

I was using Ehrman's HuffPo summary, since I had it bookmarked and it was easy to copy and paste. We do have time constraints here.

Your common sense is not accepted by the huge majority of the world that is theistic.

So, by that rationale, a theistic person would automatically take a UFO enthusiast, or someone that claims he can bend spoons with his mind, at his word?

Of course not; you'd ask for compelling evidence, because that's what people do with claims of extraordinary or supernatural events. Common sense.

Interesting that the powerball isn't even a supernatural claim, whatever that means.

It speaks to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" canard. If I tell you something mundane, you have no special reason to doubt me, unless it becomes an issue in a trial or there's some reason for scrutiny. If I tell you something extraordinary, like I won Powerball several times, or I know someone who rose from the dead, you apply that extra scrutiny right from the outset. Why does this matter? Because we can't evaluate the words of someone describing a man who rose from the dead the same we we evaluate the words of someone describing a typical human with no extraordinary properties. Yet, that's exactly what Ehrman does; he uses the same method whether evaluating a scribe, a prefect, a general, or The Human Embodiment of God. No, Ehrman doesn't think Jesus was a magical person, but the people he's citing as credible references did. That matters. A lot. Can't be swept under the rug.

Right. In an oral and agonistic society where word of mouth was tested regularly, I'm sure a claim was made that no one bothered to check out but then everyone suddenly found in their memories these events happening and then took on the most shameful position they could abandoning what was seen as the true way of YHWH.... And here comes the assumption that American society was just like the Biblical society. Not at all. This is quite easy to have happen in an age of individualism. In an age where all facts are checked by the populace before being accepted, it doesn't.

So if Paul traveled throughout the Roman Empire, telling people that the Messiah came, and was crucified near Jerusalem, they would have been able to check this fact how, exactly?

Are you making an unsupported assumption that Christianity could only have started in Galilee during the lifetime of Christ? From a historical perspective, there's no foundation for such a claim.

Not to keep going back to the LDS, but, in an age of reason and literacy, Joseph Smith was able to convince hundreds of people that a tribe of Israelites lived in North America, which they of course had no way to prove or disprove, because it happened in the past and left no trail. This is a cornerstone of the Mormon religion. So, what would be so different about convincing some people about a Messiah figure, who conveniently is no longer around, left no remains, has no physical description, and no verifiable biography?

Human nature was no different two millenia ago than it is today; people form beliefs without evidence all the time. And those beliefs go viral. Wouldn't spreading a rumor - deliberate or accidental - that the Messiah came and the Romans killed him off, be a pretty good way of stirring up some resistance?

I find it curious that the case for historical Jesus in recent times has shrunken to the point where a mainstream guy like Ehrman is forced to admit that it boils down to inferences drawn from reading of the NT, which was authored by Christians, posthumously, and on hearsay, after the religion had already had time to take root. Not long ago, we couldn't even have said that; the "consensus" then was that there's tons of non-Christian corroboration. Call me nuts if you want; I think it's pretty reasonable to think that consensus will continue to shrink, over time, to the point of "we really have no way to know if Jesus was historical." Maybe if we ever get to a point where it wouldn't be such a shock to our culture.


@Pixie -

Yeah, I'm sure you find scholarship 'bad logic' since you wouldn't know it if it was a bus getting ready to run you down.

Whose "scholarship" are we referring to? Yours? Still falling back on the juvenile?

Still arguing that Evolution is the main stream position and is therefore correct.

That's odd, did I ever argue that Evolution is correct because it's the consensus position? You seem confused. If asked why I believe in Evolution, I'd present the evidence. I gave a short list in an earlier post.

the various Roman sources contradict one another on Hannibal's crossing.

I have time constraints so I'm not going into a research project over a diversion. We've all heard the "Hannibal" argument before. Yes, sources were after-the-fact, as with much of history. Yes, they disagree on routes. There's still scores of evidence of his military legacy. But, let's say for the sake of argument that I cede that the case for Hannibal is weak; all that would show is that the case for Hannibal is insufficient, and we should rethink our assumptions about Hannibal! It doesn't bolster your case for Jesus. It's still a lousy argument, on par with the worst of the mythicist leaps.

Awe, I see... so even though they publish anti-Christian works like The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, and Why God is not Great, they are

just all bias when it comes to the Jesus myth theory. Of course, the other view is that Jesus mythers are like the AiG of the historical and theological world and are only taken seriously by a few crack pots and fringe scholars and their peers just brush them off as unimportant and spinning theories from the back waters of the web.

What does any of that have to do with argument from popularity? You're red-herringing all over the place. Can I suggest we stay on point?

Nah, you just need to keep falling back on fringe scholars who's work is not taken seriously by their atheist and agnostic peers.

The ones you happen to agree with.

Oh, it is an appeal to popularity cause you're saying, "DUH! THESE PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL OF THE HISTORICAL EXISTENCE OF JESUS!!!" even though you haven't given any evidence for this assertion...

And you claim I don't know what an argument from popularity is? Did I somehow state those people represent a popular consensus, and therefore are correct?

I did give evidence: Ehrman's own words. It's in his previous book. We consider him credible, correct? Slow down. Breathe.

The topic here is cultural influence. Would you care to answer my question: are these populations Ehrman encountered in his Scandanavian travels all the victims of Internet Crackpots, and fringe authors with third-tier publishers? Or is it possible that cultural prerequisistes have something to do with our beliefs?

Anyway, perhaps you can explain why agnostics like Robert Van Voost or Bart Ehrman and why atheist like Michael Grant and skeptics like Rudolf Bultmann or Will Durant think the Jesus myth is bunk.... (They defend their own positions rather nicely, there's little need for me to repeat it for them.) ...Can't refute it, eh?

What their opinion is, is not in dispute, so there's nothing to refute. Why should I restate their opinion, when they do it themselves quite adequately?

Still don't understand connotation vs denotation?

As stated, from my vantage point, I did not appreciate the connotation that a theistic apologist would take away from it. Happy? Seems I'm the only one with the intellectual honesty to admit that my biases can influence my perceptions, while the theist crowd still argues that faith couldn't possibly have anything to do with their stances, whatseover. And, so, back to the evidence, which is all that really matters.

==========================

On a separate note, I see the cliquish set are still making snarky non-arguments, while saying I'm the one who has no argument, apparently with no sense of irony. They also seem eager for the one person who differs to depart, so that this thread will indeed serve no purpose other than mutual fluffing.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whose "scholarship" are we referring to? Yours? Still falling back on the juvenile?

Still whining and can't accept the fact that mainstream scholarship takes the Christ Myth about a seriously as it takes such ideas as the earth is hallow, that Jesus was an alien, or that the moon landings were faked?

That's odd, did I ever argue that Evolution is correct because it's the consensus position? You seem confused. If asked why I believe in Evolution, I'd present the evidence. I gave a short list in an earlier post.

You mean like you've been given evidence here and just made excuses for it all and fail to see how the historical standards of the Christ myth would invalidate much of history? Yep, confirming what I already knew, Christ mythers are not really interested in the evidence, they just want to believe their theory because it gives them a convenient excuse to not have to do any sort of hard research cause it is easier to say Jesus didn't exist than it is to research these matters in depth. Again, the scholarly opinion on the Christ myth being bunk says a lot about it, just as it says a lot about other bunk theories out there. Unless you want to give the idea the earth is hallow merit that is...

I have time constraints so I'm not going into a research project over a diversion. We've all heard the "Hannibal" argument before. Yes, sources were after-the-fact, as with much of history. Yes, they disagree on routes. There's still scores of evidence of his military legacy. But, let's say for the sake of argument that I cede that the case for Hannibal is weak; all that would show is that the case for Hannibal is as weak as the case for Jesus, and we should rethink our assumptions about Hannibal! It doesn't bolster your case for Jesus. It's still a lousy argument, on par with the worst of the mythicist leaps.

I see your missed the point, figures Christ Mythers are good at making up excuses for their theory and special pleading their theory. Christ Mythers argue that no 'contemporary evidence' exist for Jesus yet none exist for Hannibal and I don't see any historians throwing a fit about it. There are sources of sources that mention Jesus as an historical figure and exactly ZERO that mention him as any sort of myth, but that doesn't count for evidence against the Christ Myth either, yet it counts for evidence for the existence of Hannibal. Sorry, but I do not see historians throwing a fit about Hannibal not existing and there is less for him then for Jesus, so do you want to throw all of ancient history out the window to keep your little pet belief alive or should the Christ Myth be dropped for the ranting special pleading it really is? Sorry, but the Christ Myth is all bunk and there is a reason it is held by fringe lunatics that can't get published by real publishers, it is cause it is all bunk just as this example shows.

What does any of that have to do with argument from popularity? You're red-herringing all over the place. Can I suggest we stay on point?

It is not a red herring, you're just too dumb to see where you are wrong at. Who cares what people in Sweden think about the existence of Christ. Are they historians? No. Are they theologians? No. Are they experts in any field related to the historical Jesus? Nope. So their opinion is worth as much as yours and the fact you don't give a source for this claim, but assert it (while of course, I've provided sources for mine) yet again speaks volumes about how careful you are at the sources you pick. Where did you hear this one from? Some random posting on a forum you frequent?

The ones you happen to agree with.

Which are the mainstream, accepted ones, that are everything from Christians, to Jews, to agnostics, to atheist and everything in between while yours are fringe scholars that are largely ignored by their peers. Hummm... who should I listen to, fringe lunatics or 98% of scholars, many of which have an axe to grind against Jesus?

And you claim I don't know what an argument from popularity is? Did I somehow state those people represent a popular consensus, and therefore are correct?

Did you try to bring up some irrelevant point that had nothing to do with anything that you still haven't not backed up? Yep.

I did give evidence: Ehrman's own words. It's in his previous book. We consider him credible, correct? Slow down. Breathe.

How cute, the fundy atheist thinks I'm upset. I'm quite claim and I'm enjoying enervating you and your bunk theories while watching you trying to make excuses for your hero's. It is class A entertainment. Anyway, since you didn't give the context of Ehrman's words, I don't know what his point was or even if his point wasn't something else. Soundbites are fun! Where did Ehrman get that stat from? Why was it important to his point? What was he trying to say? You don't give that or do you just like throwing up random stuff about "DUH YOU ARE ALL BIAS!" as though that refutes anything so far said?

The topic here is cultural influence. Would you care to answer my question: are these populations Ehrman encountered in his Scandanavian travels all the victims of Internet Crackpots, and fringe authors with third-tier publishers? Or is it possible that cultural prerequisistes have something to do with our beliefs?

Don't care what the people of Scandanavia believe dear. Many Americans believe Evolution isn't true, guess that speaks against how valid evolution is or is evolution only valid where most people think it is true? Again, are they historians? Nope. Are they theologians? Nope. Are they experts in these matters? Nope, so I do not care what they think cause the public is quite gullible and believes mean silly things long ago refuted by historians, scientist, philosophers, etc. After all, how many people still believe the holocaust was made up by Jews even when there is piles of evidence that it wasn't? Guess all I need to do is dig up some people doubting an event to throw it all into doubt, right? After all, why should I listen to the words of holocaust survivors or American and British solders that freed these people and saw the horrors of the holocaust first hand? They are obviously bias and the Neo-Nazi's are not, so it is true! See where this nonsense gets you?

What their opinion is, is not in dispute, so there's nothing to refute. Why should I restate their opinion, when they do it themselves quite adequately?

You still keep missing the point, huh? The public is rather gullible and believes many silly things. I mean legends about Kennedy's assassination still exist. Legends about the moon landings being faked still exist. Legends about any event in history still exist, so should I take what they say seriously? Nope cause they are refuted by real scholars and the same goes for the Christ myth, but I guess any port in a storm will do...

As stated, from my vantage point, I did not appreciate the connotation that a theistic apologist would take away from it. Happy? Seems I'm the only one with the intellectual honesty to admit that my biases can influence my perceptions, while the theist crowd still argues that faith couldn't possibly have anything to do with their stances, whatseover. And, so, back to the evidence, which is all that really matters.

Nonsense, I know everybody is bias and have admitted this in multiple post on T web, within the past week, if you were to bother to figure out people's positions before you try to tell them what they are, you'd know this. It is too bad that while I have produced evidence for why the Christ myth is bunk and why it isn't taken seriously by real scholarship, you've just whined and throw out the 'you are bias!' card without addressing a word said. For you see, instead of whining that you are 'bias', I produce evidence of why the Christ myth is bunk and produce views and opinions from leading figures. While it seems you just whine and try to throw up some random point about Sweden as though that is an argument.

On a separate note, I see the cliquish set are still making snarky non-arguments, while saying I'm the one who has no argument, apparently with no sense of irony. They also seem eager for the one person who differs to depart, so that this thread will indeed serve no purpose other than mutual fluffing.

And your consistent whining is noted and dismissed as such. Well, guess when you can't debate though the strength of your arguments, whine and hope somebody feel sorry for you. Also, that is pretty rich that we do not like those that differ from the general opinion when all of us here do not agree with one another on every point of the Christian faith, but decided to still get along. Nick and I have quite a bit different views about evolutionary theory, but we still get along just fine. Well, there goes that theory out the window, so do you got anymore?

[Indy]

Still whining and can't accept the fact that mainstream scholarship takes the Christ Myth about a seriously as it takes such ideas as the earth is hallow...

I accept this fact and dispute its relevance. Which scholarship is considered "mainstream" holds little weight for me. If we only accepted "mainstream" scholarship, our opinions would never change. It's poor argument.

You mean like you've been given evidence here and just made excuses for it all...

Actually, no one has laid out the evidence at all. People have merely just cited who they believe are the credible authorities. Frankly, I'm in the defensive position here as the outsider, but really, it should be up to the rest to make their case from the evidence.

Christ Mythers argue that no 'contemporary evidence' exist for Jesus yet none exist for Hannibal and I don't see any historians throwing a fit about it.

Because contemporary evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. In the case of Jesus, it speaks to the credibility of the scant material we have. However, if there were corroboration outside of those writings, such as remains of cities left in ruins by his armies, or evidence of the depletion of Rome's bronze supply because of the long war against Jesus... With Hannibal, we have thousands of textual references from diverse authors, mostly hostile point of view; with Jesus, we have a small sampling from people that weren't just friendly; they were vested in a religion in his name.

And again, all you can prove is that the case for Hannibal is weak and should be re-evaluated. Do you really want to keep going down this line?

Who cares what people in Sweden think about the existence of Christ.

Well, if you're arguing that any reasonable people believe in historical Christ, then you need to explain why Ehrman encountered a lot of people who don't simply by flying to another part of the world. Is Sweden a country full of unreasonable people or easy dupes? How many ways are you going to avoid this question - no comment on the accident of culture? The academic pedigree of common Swedes has no relevance to this discussion; we're not discussing their doctoral dissertations, we're discussing why their culture has a different outlook than what is considered "obvious" here. You seem to have a hard time absorbing this, perhaps because it requires an original response, instead of drawing material from the historicist echo chamber (e.g. "We have no more evidence for Hannibal!").

How cute, the fundy atheist thinks I'm upset.

No, but you're clearly losing track of our multiple lines of discussion and reading hastily, which makes it difficult to have a debate. And, still dropping insults as a defense of your logic, which just makes it a waste of time. I'm here for logical exchanges, not adolescent barb-trading. So really, if that's how you're going to go about things, I'll add you to my "don't bother" list.

Well, guess when you can't debate though the strength of your arguments, whine and hope somebody feel sorry for you.

I have not engaged those people in debate, so that's a rather silly statement. How many total insults makes your logic correct?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



...Are you really going to claim that faith plays no role in the industry of religious apologetics?

Only as soon as you give your definition of faith, which I am sure will be the wrong one.

I think we both agree that each argument should be evaluated on its own merits, is that fair to say? So we can put that one to rest?

I agree with that. I just don't make a distinction between religious argumentation and non-religious. You do. Hence, double-standard.

I thought Polycarp was the source of that calculation, from memory. I certainly could be wrong. My understanding is that there's not anything near a consensus on the reason for December 25. Don't think it merits a research project, for such a tangent. Point is, we now take many things for granted that at the time were contrary to the prevailing consensus. Do you dispute this?

No. Heliocentrism is the prime example. The problem is that we change the paradigm based on newly discovered evidence. The more evidence we have, the more we find the Christ-myth idea is bogus.



[QUOTE} OK, I'll cede you have a point there. But I still don't buy your argument that this line of inquiry only exists because the Internet breeds crackpottery. The line of inquiry never went away, it simply gained a new audience - as has general atheism, non-mainstream Christian apologetics, open inquiry and critique of Islam, LDS, Scientology, Watchtower Society, etc.[/QUOTE}

Yes. It gained a new audience of the uninformed and the uninformed started touting it off as if it was as much gospel as the gospel that they deny. "There is no God at all but if He did exist, Carrier would be His prophet."

Obviously, we won't look at this the same way. One person's Valid and Necessary Inquiry is another person's Wingnut Conspiracy. So, back to the evidence.

Back there? To go back there, you had to have been there sometime. I see no evidence that you have been.

Of course, but then they have to have a convincing critique of the accepted consensus to back it up. Seems they've fallen short in that regard.

They have? There are more academics in a relevant field easily that question evolution than there are academics in a relevant field that question if Jesus existed. By your standards, you should be far more skeptical of evolution, but then you have changed the rules when it suits you. Do tell me who in academia who is a scholar in the relevant field denies Jesus existed?

As for mythicists, my personal opinion is that they've been convincing in pointing out the inadequacy of the case for historicity - not so much so in supporting their alternate hypotheses. The same scarcity of evidence that impedes historicity also works against substantiation of the alternatives. There's a tendency, though, to throw the baby out with the bathwater: "Joe Mythicist hasn't made a compelling case for his alternate hypothesis, therefore, this proves historical Jesus." Not so.

Correct. Those who say Jesus existed should have evidence, and indeed we do. The problem is I seriously doubt any historiographical method on the part of those who wish to advocate a Christ-myth. Based on what Pixie told you, why accept Hannibal but not Jesus? I still want to know why you accept Alexander but not Jesus. Even Licona in his tour de force of "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach" gives a footnote to the Christ-myth theory with scholars from all end of the spectrum speaking on it.

I was using Ehrman's HuffPo summary, since I had it bookmarked and it was easy to copy and paste. We do have time constraints here.

Link?

So, by that rationale, a theistic person would automatically take a UFO enthusiast, or someone that claims he can bend spoons with his mind, at his word?

Still got that all-or-nothing fundy thinking huh?

No. Not at all. The idea is that if you wish to say being skeptical of theistic claims is common sense, then your common sense is not that common.

Of course not; you'd ask for compelling evidence, because that's what people do with claims of extraordinary or supernatural events. Common sense.

Never occurs to you does it that most of the world considers atheism to be the extraordinary claim does it?

It speaks to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" canard. If I tell you something mundane, you have no special reason to doubt me, unless it becomes an issue in a trial or there's some reason for scrutiny. If I tell you something extraordinary, like I won Powerball several times, or I know someone who rose from the dead, you apply that extra scrutiny right from the outset. Why does this matter? Because we can't evaluate the words of someone describing a man who rose from the dead the same we we evaluate the words of someone describing a typical human with no extraordinary properties. Yet, that's exactly what Ehrman does; he uses the same method whether evaluating a scribe, a prefect, a general, or The Human Embodiment of God. No, Ehrman doesn't think Jesus was a magical person, but the people he's citing as credible references did. That matters. A lot. Can't be swept under the rug.

You know what I want to do if I see if you won the Powerball five times? Simple. I go back and look at news reports. Nothing extraordinary about that. What does this even mean about extraordinary evidence? Does it glow or something? The ECREE claim is just a canard to shift a burden of proof and push evidence to the realm of impossibility for claims one doesn't like.

So if Paul traveled throughout the Roman Empire, telling people that the Messiah came, and was crucified near Jerusalem, they would have been able to check this fact how, exactly?

Quite easily. You go back to the community and ask around. People had really good memories and information would spread around town like wildfire.

Are you making an unsupported assumption that Christianity could only have started in Galilee during the lifetime of Christ? From a historical perspective, there's no foundation for such a claim.

Actually, that it started in Jerusalem is really a great evidence in its favor. If this stuff was being made up, you're not going to start in Grand Central where anyone could immediately verify if this happened. Go to Rome or Athens first.

Not to keep going back to the LDS, but, in an age of reason and literacy, Joseph Smith was able to convince hundreds of people that a tribe of Israelites lived in North America, which they of course had no way to prove or disprove, because it happened in the past and left no trail.

Oh you who complain about insults. Do you realize how condescending such a statement is to all those societies that are oral and illiterate? "We live in an age of reason" (Implication that the prior ages did not value reason) "and an age of literacy" (Implication that because we can read, we are smarter) "and we were fooled." (Implication that obviously those earlier stupid societies would have been.

If any time was truly an age of reason, I would say it was the past time with Plato, Aristotle, and the great ideas being discussed regularly. Consider that on the American continent we've only created one philosophical system and that's pragmatism, to just do what works. In fact, it's easier in many ways when you can produce a book that people won't fact check due to individualism. Everyone will see the book and read the book and the gullible will assume it's true. Also, do some further study and find out about something called the "Burned-Over District" and see how it relates to Mormonism.

In any case, the whole mindset is sickening.

This is a cornerstone of the Mormon religion. So, what would be so different about convincing some people about a Messiah figure, who conveniently is no longer around, left no remains, has no physical description, and no verifiable biography?

Who says he left no remains? We could in fact say the same about Alexander the Great. Did he leave a sword that said "Made by Alexander"? No. Do you know where his bones are? No. Is he no longer around? Yes. When was his first biography written? You tell me that one.

In actuality, the events describing Jesus took place quite quickly and would have been in the memories of the populace. That's why someone like Robert Price has to say the 1 Cor. 15 creed is an interpolation, despite zero evidence for that. If you wanted to know what happened, you talked to the eyewitnesses in a community where fact-checking would take place. Producing tall tales would result in a lack of honor after all.

Human nature was no different two millenia ago than it is today; people form beliefs without evidence all the time. And those beliefs go viral. Wouldn't spreading a rumor - deliberate or accidental - that the Messiah came and the Romans killed him off, be a pretty good way of stirring up some resistance?

Human nature might not change, but the ways societies work do. That you don't know this is a sign of your ignorance and arrogance both. If this was done to stir up resistance, then why do we not have the strangest thing of seeing zero resistance? In fact, the epistles tell the Christians to show respect to those who rule and to honor the king and pray for Caesar. Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Sorry, but no one would stand up and face Rome for what they knew to be a myth and people were not so stupid back then to believe a claim like that to stake their lives on without evidence.

I find it curious that the case for historical Jesus in recent times has shrunken to the point where a mainstream guy like Ehrman is forced to admit that it boils down to inferences drawn from reading of the NT, which was authored by Christians, posthumously, and on hearsay, after the religion had already had time to take root. Not long ago, we couldn't even have said that; the "consensus" then was that there's tons of non-Christian corroboration. Call me nuts if you want; I think it's pretty reasonable to think that consensus will continue to shrink, over time, to the point of "we really have no way to know if Jesus was historical." Maybe if we ever get to a point where it wouldn't be such a shock to our culture.

I'd like to see where Ehrman said this first off since I disagree with the statement. What has happened is not that culture has got more open-minded and intelligent. In fact, we've got more close-minded and moronic.

[Indy]

Last one for today - @ Pheonix

Only as soon as you give your definition of faith...

Are we really going to debate the definition of "faith?" Sorry, I strongly suspect you're setting up a major diversion here, that I'd rather not indulge, especially since we apparently agree to stick to evidence.

The more evidence we have, the more we find the Christ-myth idea is bogus.

You do understand that the principle tenet of mythicism is the lack of evidence for Jesus, correct? So that doesn't make that much sense. All the stuff about mystery religions, precedents in Judaism, ad nauseum all have to do with the construction of plausible alternative scenarios. Repeating my earlier comment about throwing the baby out with the bathwater: you can prove my alternate scenario is poppycock, but that doesn't mean you've proven your historical Christ.

By your standards, you should be far more skeptical of evolution...

By my standards, we should be confident in that which is supported by evidence. Evolution has lots, historicity of Jesus has little, and it's not strong evidence. As I said to Pixie, the "consensus" is not what determines what is correct. People here seem to fall back on that argument a lot. Frankly, admitting that something needs to be decided by "consensus" is an admission that it's not so obvious to begin with, correct?

Evolution isn't decided merely by consensus, it's decided by the rigors of science: publishing and peer review, falsifiability, and most importantly, by predictive power.

The problem is I seriously doubt any historiographical method on the part of those who wish to advocate a Christ-myth.

This is why I opened this whole conversation with "Carrier will be hard to write off," because he's devoting an entire book to method alone. PhD, Ancient History, Columbia, not a lightweight. How quickly people dismissed.

Ehrman on HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html. Additionally, I did not state anything he did not repeat in greater detail in the book.

No. Not at all. The idea is that if you wish to say being skeptical of theistic claims is common sense, then your common sense is not that common.

People are skeptical of everyone else's theistic claims, except their own. Do Christians believe Mohammed rode a winged horse into the clouds?

Never occurs to you does it that most of the world considers atheism to be the extraordinary claim does it?

I'm well aware of it, and since you seem very asute I don't think we need to point out that it's an obvious logical fallacy regarding the shifting burden of proof.

You know what I want to do if I see if you won the Powerball five times? Simple. I go back and look at news reports.

Exactly, you don't believe it just because I said it. Whereas most other mundane things I say, you would simply take my word for it.

Actually, that it started in Jerusalem is really a great evidence in its favor.

So why are you so certain Christianity started in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Christ? Not even Ehrman would agree we know exactly where and when Christianity started.

Oh you who complain about insults..

The literacy rate in first century Judea is believed to be about 3%. Are we really going to get into the business of comparing 1st century Judea to post-Enlightenment, scientific age, midwestern America in terms of education level and skepticism? It's not an insult, it's academic. I'm not saying first century Judeans were stupid. But things were what they were, it was 2000+ years ago. Either way, it's germane to the argument. If I grant you they were exactly on par with modern America, that doesn't change that if it could happen here and now, it could have happened there and then,

why do we not have the strangest thing of seeing zero resistance

There's no evidence of resistance to Roman occupation? You may want to rethink that.

Best regards, I appreciate your on-point debate. Will check back when I can.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Last one for today - @ Pheonix



Are we really going to debate the definition of "faith?" Sorry, I strongly suspect you're setting up a major diversion here, that I'd rather not indulge, especially since we apparently agree to stick to evidence.

Yes. We are going to debate them because I think terms have meaning and I want to be sure we mean what we say. Interesting you don't even want to give your definition. Lack of evidence for it again?

You do understand that the principle tenet of mythicism is the lack of evidence for Jesus, correct? So that doesn't make that much sense. All the stuff about mystery religions, precedents in Judaism, ad nauseum all have to do with the construction of plausible alternative scenarios. Repeating my earlier comment about throwing the baby out with the bathwater: you can prove my alternate scenario is poppycock, but that doesn't mean you've proven your historical Christ.

And maybe aliens assassinated JFK.....

Again, I'll gladly give my evidence for Jesus. I'm just waiting to see you throw out a real argument against him. Note that even G.A. Wells has backed down from his position.

By my standards, we should be confident in that which is supported by evidence. Evolution has lots, historicity of Jesus has little, and it's not strong evidence.

Really? According to who? Who says the evidence for the historicity of Jesus? Name the relevant scholars in the field.

As I said to Pixie, the "consensus" is not what determines what is correct. People here seem to fall back on that argument a lot. Frankly, admitting that something needs to be decided by "consensus" is an admission that it's not so obvious to begin with, correct?

Let me say it again for the umpteenth time since it hasn't got into that skull of yours yet. Consensus does not prove a proposition is true but it demonstrates there must be a strong basis if so many who are even disinterested hold it.

Evolution isn't decided merely by consensus, it's decided by the rigors of science: publishing and peer review, falsifiability, and most importantly, by predictive power.

Jesus's historicity isn't determined merely by consensus, but by the rigors of history, publishing and peer review, falsifiabilitym and most importantly, explanatory scope.

Works both ways. Why is it evolution is okay and Jesus isn't, especially since even more question evolution and those are people with positions in academia in the relevant fields?

This is why I opened this whole conversation with "Carrier will be hard to write off," because he's devoting an entire book to method alone. PhD, Ancient History, Columbia, not a lightweight. How quickly people dismissed.

We'll just wait and see who publishes it. If he goes with Prometheus again, that will tell enough.

Ehrman on HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html. Additionally, I did not state anything he did not repeat in greater detail in the book.

That's quite lacking on his part. He never mentions Josephus, Tacitus, or Seutonius.

People are skeptical of everyone else's theistic claims, except their own. Do Christians believe Mohammed rode a winged horse into the clouds?

That's not a theistic claim. That's a religious claim. There's a difference.

I'm well aware of it, and since you seem very asute I don't think we need to point out that it's an obvious logical fallacy regarding the shifting burden of proof.

Here we go again! The theist must back his claim to the atheist! The atheist has no such burden to the theist.

Exactly, you don't believe it just because I said it. Whereas most other mundane things I say, you would simply take my word for it.

Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt people on mundane things every day. We all do. Either way, the evidence is not extraordinary.

So why are you so certain Christianity started in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Christ? Not even Ehrman would agree we know exactly where and when Christianity started.

Tacitus states it. Furthermore, the Pauline epistles indicate that as well as Acts. I think Ehrman would in fact agree, aside from it starting during the life of Christ. It started after the resurrection.

The literacy rate in first century Judea is believed to be about 3%. Are we really going to get into the business of comparing 1st century Judea to post-Enlightenment, scientific age, midwestern America in terms of education level and skepticism?

It's what you just did. Your chronological snobbery is disgusting.

It's not an insult, it's academic.

You have those reversed.

I'm not saying first century Judeans were stupid.

Yeah you are. We live in an age of reason. They didn't. What do you call that?

But things were what they were, it was 2000+ years ago.

Oh. That verifies it! Chronological snobbery at its worst.

Either way, it's germane to the argument. If I grant you they were exactly on par with modern America, that doesn't change that if it could happen here and now, it could have happened there and then,

Not saying that either. I'm saying they were agonistic instead of individualized. It makes the societies totally different. Any anthropologist would tell you a major mistake is to assume a different culture is like your own.

There's no evidence of resistance to Roman occupation? You may want to rethink that.

Reading comprehension bad eh? Yes. There's evidence of resistance to Rome, but not from the Christian movement. The Christian movement did not raise up a rebellion or seek to conquer Rome but instead said many things opposite. True, they did not worship Caesar, but it was not because they were opposed to Rome. If the Jesus movement was created to do that, then why is there no evidence that they did?

[lilpixieofterror]

I accept this fact and dispute its relevance. Which scholarship is considered "mainstream" holds little weight for me. If we only accepted "mainstream" scholarship, our opinions would never change. It's poor argument.

So the views and opinions of experts that have spent decades of their lives studying this stuff that reject the Christ myth as bunk is not evidence at all, but some guy spinning things on the back waters of the web is useful evidence. Ok, whatever you want to tell yourself... I'll remember that next time I hear a skeptic argue that evolutionary theory is the most accepted theory of the development of life out there.

Actually, no one has laid out the evidence at all. People have merely just cited who they believe are the credible authorities. Frankly, I'm in the defensive position here as the outsider, but really, it should be up to the rest to make their case from the evidence.

Closing your eyes and making it go away works quite well, eh? Can I try the bury the head in the sand view next time I run into things I disagree with instead of bothering to interact with any of it? Face it, your method is all bunk and is up there with the theory that Jesus was a time trailer, that Kennedy was killed from the grassy knoll, or that the Holocaust never happened. Yeah, I'm sure ignoring scholarship and basic facts is how you remain a Jesus myther, it has seemed to work well for these other positions too.

Because contemporary evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. In the case of Jesus, it speaks to the credibility of the scant material we have. However, if there were corroboration outside of those writings, such as remains of cities left in ruins by his armies, or evidence of the depletion of Rome's bronze supply because of the long war against Jesus... With Hannibal, we have thousands of textual references from diverse authors, mostly hostile point of view; with Jesus, we have a small sampling from people that weren't just friendly; they were vested in a religion in his name.

Oh dear more stupidity! You mean like how not a single person until the 18th century disputes that Jesus existed again does not count as evidence against your bunk theory? The fact the Gospels and Acts describe dozens of places shown to exist also doesn't seem to count as evidence either. Likewise, the fact that you can't use archeology to prove that Hannibal conquered or attacked X city also seems to not be part of your thought process. What should we find if Jesus was in a city at a time period or any historical character was beyond what the documents tell us? Here is a challenge for you, go to Gettysburg and please find me physical evidence of Lincoln giving his Gettysburg address or else I must conclude it was a myth! See, this is why the Christ Myth is all bunk, it fails to apply its own standards evenly and ends up making all sorts of mistakes. Finally, there are thousands of documents about Hannibal? Where did you get that one from? A cereal box or did you just make it up? The major sourcse of Hannibal's life comes from Livy and Polybius, which wrote centuries later (much later then the NT was written in). Where do you have these 'thousands of copies at', in your basement

And again, all you can prove is that the case for Hannibal is weak and should be re-evaluated. Do you really want to keep going down this line?

And yet, no historian throws a fit about it and says he doesn't exist, but hey what do real historians know? They just have degrees and they just study this stuff for a living, they don't know a darn thing cause they dare to disagree with the great Indy. Please change your name, you're an embarrassment to that name and making Indiana Jones look bad.

Well, if you're arguing that any reasonable people believe in historical Christ, then you need to explain why Ehrman encountered a lot of people who don't simply by flying to another part of the world. Is Sweden a country full of unreasonable people or easy dupes? How many ways are you going to avoid this question - no comment on the accident of culture? The academic pedigree of common Swedes has no relevance to this discussion; we're not discussing their doctoral dissertations, we're discussing why their culture has a different outlook than what is considered "obvious" here. You seem to have a hard time absorbing this, perhaps because it requires an original response, instead of drawing material from the historicist echo chamber (e.g. "We have no more evidence for Hannibal!").

Considering how many people still think the moon landings are faked, who think Kennedy was killed by the CIA, or who think that the Holocaust never happened, yeah, I would say that the public is very dumb and quite gullible based upon evidence like that. Second, yeah the academic pedigree has a lot to do with this discussion because they are NOT EXPERTS in this topic and appealing to somebody or a group who is NOT AN EXPERT(S) would be a classic appeal to authority and/or appeal to popularity and your attempt to diverge the conversation to this topic because you are getting your hide tanned on everything is also rather revealing (AKA a classic red herring). You accuse me of making logical fallacies, yet you seem to make them yourself and don't even notice it. The public is very gullible and believes all sorts of silly things (if you don't believe me, Jay Leno has a pretty funny street interviews where people say some very ignorant and/or dumb things). If that is all you got, sorry, your distraction along with your appeal to an invalid authority is noted.

No, but you're clearly losing track of our multiple lines of discussion and reading hastily, which makes it difficult to have a debate. And, still dropping insults as a defense of your logic, which just makes it a waste of time. I'm here for logical exchanges, not adolescent barb-trading. So really, if that's how you're going to go about things, I'll add you to my "don't bother" list.

I guess when you can't deal with the arguments, try armchair psychoanalysis! Really funny and quite revealing, but sorry dear, you are not that hard to refute and the fact you are whining about insults says a lot. Don't worry, I will drop a rather fun bomb shell in the end.

I have not engaged those people in debate, so that's a rather silly statement. How many total insults makes your logic correct?

I insult idiots like you for a reason, I get to see how unreasonable you are IE:

Proverbs 12:16, NIV

Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult.

Thanks for showing your colors.

[Indy]

@Phoenix -

Interesting you don't even want to give your definition. Lack of evidence for it again?

Again, I'm exercising some restraint in how many side-threads we go down. Getting all Noam Chomsky over the word "faith" seems futile to me, since it seems to deal in an area where we've declared a truce.

I'm just waiting to see you throw out a real argument against him.

I've made that argument. Quick synopsis (since this is a comment thread): duplicate Bart Ehrman's arguments about the extrabiblical sources, and then take away the reliability he places on Christian authors. a) they're talking about someone for whom they have no first-hand knowledge, b) they're religious devotees, and c) they're talking about a person with magical powers, which should give any reasonable person cause to take anything they say about said person with a huge grain of salt.

Of course, Ehrman's opinions on the extrabiblical sources are generally shared amongst the "scholarly consensus". I'm using him alone for brevity, since this thread deals with his book.

According to who? Who says the evidence for the historicity of Jesus? Name the relevant scholars in the field.

I refer you back to the previous argument.

Consensus does not prove a proposition is true but it demonstrates there must be a strong basis if so many who are even disinterested hold it.

If we agree on the first part, then can we stop making arguments from consensus as if they're Q.E.D.?

I'll agree consensuses are evidence of a strong basis, if you'll agree that they sometimes turn out to be wrong upon revisitation.

Jesus's historicity isn't determined merely by consensus, but by the rigors of history, publishing and peer review, falsifiability and most importantly, explanatory scope.

Good argument. Agreed, but I'll add there's no reasonable way to falsify someone who perished two millenia ago, short of a smoking gun letter that says "I made it all up." We obviously can't expect to find such a thing.

If he goes with Prometheus again, that will tell enough.

If you're going to accuse me of chronological snobbery, can I paint you as a publishing snob? There are "correct" publishers and "incorrect" publishers? I'm concerned with the content, not the outlet. He could write it on a Wendy's napkin, for all I care, if it's sound.

Tacitus states it. Furthermore, the Pauline epistles indicate that as well as Acts. I think Ehrman would in fact agree, aside from it starting during the life of Christ. It started after the resurrection.

Tacitus gives you the existence of Christians in 64 AD. I'll retract my statement on Ehrman; I was thinking in terms of when the documents were written.

Yeah you are. We live in an age of reason. They didn't. What do you call that?

Is it somehow incorrect to point out this was a pre-scientific culture, or that literacy rates are what we'd today call abysmal? Are you really going to advocate a position that their culture was "agnostic" (Jews?) and not very surpertitious, even in light of how many mystery cults, Roman/Greek gods, etc. were floating around? And, that word of mouth is infallible? How did all those mystery cults get started, then, if everyone was carefully investigating the claims of every new outgrowth?

The facts are what they are... and, to boot, it's a diversion. Even if I were to cede that I'm a "chronological snob," where does that get you?

The Christian movement did not raise up a rebellion...

Back up... I'm saying a rumor could have spread amongst Jews. Once said rumor evolved into the Christian religion, I agree with you, they wisely opted for the "turn the other cheek" path.

As for @Pixie, you're off the rails, and we're done. Thanks for the portions of your debate that exhibited minimal decorum.

[lilpixieofterror]

As for @Pixie, you're off the rails, and we're done. Thanks for the portions of your debate that exhibited minimal decorum.

Awe, do you have sensitive feelings and got them all hurt cause you can't defend your Christ Myth nonsense and get all sore over a few little insults? Yet again:

Proverbs 12:16, NIV

Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult.

I'm sorry, but when you learn to drop your arrogance, crying, answering arguments, and actually get a reputable position, I might begin to take you seriously. For now, you get all the ridicule you earn.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



Again, I'm exercising some restraint in how many side-threads we go down. Getting all Noam Chomsky over the word "faith" seems futile to me, since it seems to deal in an area where we've declared a truce.

No. I just think words have meanings and you've said my position has a faith element the others don't. Until you tell me what you mean by that term, I refuse to accept it.

I've made that argument. Quick synopsis (since this is a comment thread): duplicate Bart Ehrman's arguments about the extrabiblical sources,

Do you have any reason to doubt the reference in Josephus to James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ?

Do you have any reason to doubt the reliability of the statement in the Annals of Tacitus in 15.44?

Do you have any reason that we should discount what Seutonius says about Chrestus?

and then take away the reliability he places on Christian authors.

Do you have a reply to a work such as Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"?

a) they're talking about someone for whom they have no first-hand knowledge,

I do not accept this.

b) they're religious devotees,

Double-standard again. Jews have the most accurate holocaust museums. Do you think they have a bias?

and c) they're talking about a person with magical powers,

Wrong again. Do you know what magical powers actually are and how they were done both in the ancient world and today? It seems you're confusing anything outside the realm of natural, whatever that is, with magical.

which should give any reasonable person cause to take anything they say about said person with a huge grain of salt.

Ah. So everyone who holds to Christianity is just not being reasonable? Got it. I just have this strange standard. I don't outright reject all miracle claims or outright believe all of them. Funny thing is, that's my standard in any field.

Of course, Ehrman's opinions on the extrabiblical sources are generally shared amongst the "scholarly consensus". I'm using him alone for brevity, since this thread deals with his book.

Not really. When he speaks of the scholarly consensus, he means the skeptical community, which is a way of saying "All people with my presuppositions agree with me." Good commentaries on the gospels will give you the arguments for apostolic authorship where applicable.

I refer you back to the previous argument.

See above.

If we agree on the first part, then can we stop making arguments from consensus as if they're Q.E.D.?

No. But if everyone in the field, even where you would expect strong disagreement, has no disagreement, there could be a reason for that.

I'll agree consensuses are evidence of a strong basis, if you'll agree that they sometimes turn out to be wrong upon revisitation.

Never had a problem with that. Why else would I mention Heliocentrism? The problem is there has not been new evidence presented. Just old disproven arguments to new people.

Good argument. Agreed, but I'll add there's no reasonable way to falsify someone who perished two millenia ago, short of a smoking gun letter that says "I made it all up." We obviously can't expect to find such a thing.

Historical claims are often falsified by better evidence. This is part of the problem in that many people don't understand historiography. If you say there is no way to falsify someone, then it sure seems you give yourself quite the burden of proof. You have to explain away any evidence presented and then find a better explanation.

Good luck.

If you're going to accuse me of chronological snobbery, can I paint you as a publishing snob? There are "correct" publishers and "incorrect" publishers? I'm concerned with the content, not the outlet. He could write it on a Wendy's napkin, for all I care, if it's sound.

Yes there are because many publishers want to print books that will sell with good reputation. Christ-myth books don't do that. Furthermore, for someone who was just talking about peer-reviewed awhile ago, that sure seems to have shifted. Say. Has Carrier's material on the Christ-myth been peer-reviewed yet?

Tacitus gives you the existence of Christians in 64 AD. I'll retract my statement on Ehrman; I was thinking in terms of when the documents were written.

Have you read Tacitus? I mean, really read him? I do have a copy of the Annals if you want to point out anything in it that brings the reference to Christ into question.

Is it somehow incorrect to point out this was a pre-scientific culture,

Pre-scientific does not equal ignorant or unreasonable. Should I point out how much of what we have in science relies on Aristotle and that in turn coming through the medieval church?

or that literacy rates are what we'd today call abysmal?

They'd also call your memory and even mine abysmal.

Are you really going to advocate a position that their culture was "agnostic" (Jews?)

The term is agonistic. Agnostic refers to not knowing something. Agonistic refers to a society that was not individualized but built on an honor-shame paradigm.

and not very surpertitious,

Do I need to remind you that in our society that whenever you open a newspaper, you can see the Horoscope? Do you know how many ghost shows are on TV? Sorry, but our age is very superstitious and moving away from God is something that increases superstition.

[QUOTE] even in light of how many mystery cults, Roman/Greek gods, etc. were floating around? [/QUOTE}

No. I'm just saying that they were still people of reason.

And, that word of mouth is infallible? How did all those mystery cults get started, then, if everyone was carefully investigating the claims of every new outgrowth?

The mystery cults referred to events that happened ages ago so people could no longer do the fact-checking and few people treated them as systems of thought that one could base their livelihood on, hence they were always open to change. Christianity was not that. It was based in recent times in a heavily monotheistic area in conjunction and continuity with the monotheistic system and claimed incompatibility with all counter-claims.

Apples and oranges.

The facts are what they are... and, to boot, it's a diversion. Even if I were to cede that I'm a "chronological snob," where does that get you?

Gets me to the point. You're egotistical about your culture and thus yourself causing you to prima facie dismiss the ancients.

I've spent much time reading them. They're not to be dismissed.

Back up... I'm saying a rumor could have spread amongst Jews. Once said rumor evolved into the Christian religion, I agree with you, they wisely opted for the "turn the other cheek" path.

Sure. Also, it's possible that Elvis went back in time and claimed to be the king. Who knows?

The point is that if they began this to bring about resistance to Rome, it sure was a strange idea to do it since the gospels have the Jews working on collaboration with Rome. Most see it the other way. This is why Crossan and Ehrman see the gospels leading to more anti-semitism than opposition to Rome.

It just seems you've presented a theory with no evidence and all the evidence against it.

You know, like the Christ-myth theory.

By the way, where's that evidence for that great dude Alex?

[Indy]

@Phoenix - a couple comments, then replies:

As I'm sure you'd agree, the historicity question is purely a historical one, not a theological one. We need to approach the question as armchair historians.

Thus our personal feelings about "faith", "thestic beliefs" vs. "religious beliefs" et al don't seem terribly relevant to me. To a historian, there's no distinction between a religion and a legend; Mohammed is a person, not a prophet, and Jesus of Nazareth is no different than Josh from Nazareth, PA. What is significant to a historian, though, is extraordinary claims, as they speak to a witness's credibility. In that regard, a "theistic" claim is no different from a "supernatural" claim, or any kind of claim that puts the witness's credibility into question.

So, a mental exercise: pretend for a moment you're traveling across the Midwest, and in your travels you stop at a diner, where you come across a group of folks who seem to have a small religion built up around a lumberjack named Paul Bunyan. But, not just your typical lumberjack: a 49-foot man who had a giant blue ox for a pet. Given that's all you know so far, do you assume these people have taken a real, living lumberjack and greatly embellished, or, do you think there's a decent chance that this person is completely legendary, a figment of someone's overactive imagination?

Now, putting our personal beliefs aside, from the vantage point of a historian, how is a man who was virgin-born, walked on water, and defied death, different from a 49-foot man with a blue ox?

----------------------------

Dictionary gives five definitions for "faith"; the ones relevant to us are 2) belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact; and 3) belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

The original question was: "Are you really going to claim that faith plays no role in the industry of religious apologetics?" You replied, "Only as soon as you give your definition of faith, which I am sure will be the wrong one." My answer: I'm going by the dictionary definition of faith as stated above. So, if you have an answer as to why the dictionary definition is "wrong," or an answer as to whether faith plays a part of religious apologetics (e.g. a Scientology adherent's views would be influenced by his belief in Scientology), I'd enjoy hearing them.

----------------------------


James, the brother of Christ: I'm sure I'm telling you nothing you haven't seen before, but the translation is "James, Brother of the Lord," which could well be an honorific title. Carrier/Ehrman debate goes into great length over this one.

Tacitus 15.44 tells us that Christians were persecuted, and that their religion was based on a belief in a Christ. Nothing more.

"Chrestus" is a name, "Christus" is an honorific title, "Jesus" is a person. Plus, this Chrestus lived during Claudius.


----------------------------

I have not read Richard Bauckham, sorry.

----------------------------

Mainline scholars do accept that none of the authors of the NT personally witnessed Jesus. Why are they wrong? Let's use Ehrman, if you want to go with one specific person.

----------------------------

I don't follow what Holocaust museums have to do with anything; the Holocaust was a historical event that had a lot to do with racism. If you want to discuss the historicity of Moses, or the Exodus from Egypt, which are directly related to their religious beliefs, then let's have a go.


----------------------------

It seems you're confusing anything outside the realm of natural, whatever that is, with magical....I don't outright reject all miracle claims or outright believe all of them. Funny thing is, that's my standard in any field.

As above, I posit that when you're evaluating history alone, academically, as a historian, you should. You should treat Jesus no differently than Paul Bunyan.

----------------------------

But if everyone in the field, even where you would expect strong disagreement, has no disagreement, there could be a reason for that.

What you've done here is akin to saying, "every climate scientist accepts anthropogenic global warming," because you've conveniently excluded the ones who disagree. "Everyone in the field" includes Price, Carrier, et al. You can't say they're not "in the field" merely because they don't share the consensus view. It's lazy.

----------------------------

Historical claims are often falsified by better evidence.

True, but my comment asked what kind of "evidence" could possibly falsify the existence of Jesus. Due to the nature of the qestion, there's nothing that could.

----------------------------

Carrier's first book of two just came out, so give it time. There's been plenty of pre-debate. He's also been dissected on earlier efforts.

----------------------------

Not sure how much time we want to divest in the whole "were people more gullible then than now" thing, it seems like an ad hominem attempt ("I'm a 'chronological snob', so my other opinions are invalid.) My last comment on the matter is that "Why People Believe Weird Things" is timeless; things like wishful thinking and confirmation bias are not unique to any time or place in history. That's either an insult to everyone, or an insult to no one.

----------------------------

Alexander: as I said to Pixie, it's moot, because all we accomplish by debating Alexander is possibly putting our beliefs about Alexander into question. But, again, aside from the monuments, there is overwhelming physical evidence that a Greek army conquered much of the Middle East, that the subsequent kingdoms which the empire was divided into really existed, the records of conquered Egyptians, the records of conquered Middle-Easterns, and so on. If we had completely disconnected populations recording how they were invaded by Jesus's legions, do you really think we'd be having this conversation?

I don't see how historicists can keep pointing (rightly) at the worst mythicist arguments, and then come to the table with such a farce of their own, seriously. Debating Alexander does not bolster the case for Jesus; it's an attempt at an argument from hypocrisy that falls short.

Gotta run, literally (10 mile trail run). Enjoy your Saturday.