What Danny and the other "JESUS WAS REAL!!!!" shriekers ignore is that doubts about xtian bullshit arose ( Volney and Dupuis ) shortly after the French Revolution when the church suddenly lost the power to burn heretics at the stake.  It is obvious that they only maintained their power by threat of murdering unbelievers.  Yet Volney and Dupuis did not arise in a vacuum.  There must have been an underground of doubters even when the church fucks thought they were hot shit.

So since 1795 and continuing through a whole line of people who look at bullshit and call "BULLSHIT" there is a list of scholars, like F.C. Baur, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, the Tubingen School in Germany and the Dutch Radicals in Holland have been merrily demolishing xtian horseshit.  Carrier and Price are not the originators.  They have merely picked up the flag and charged into the ranks of superstitious believing fools!

(September 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Aractus, you either did not see, or have chosen to ignore, this post of mine, so I'll emphasize it a little:

(September 5, 2016 at 8:25 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm sorry, your sources for those claims didn't post. Try again, this time linking data that I may review for myself.

To be clear, I want to see polling data demonstrating these claims. Otherwise, you're simply talking out your ass ... something that should only be done in a men's room, not the pages of the forum.

There is plenty of evidence from within academia (i.e. other scholars). Everyone else in this thread seems to be taking Min's lead and ignoring the academics. Bart Ehrman (an atheist NT scholar) says that there is hard evidence for the existence of Jesus and that no serious scholars doubt that, and Larry Hurtado (a highly respected scholar) says much the same. So we've established that there are almost no scholars within the discipline that think Jesus was a myth. Jon Burke (yet another NT scholar) has gone to the trouble of categorising all the Jesus-mythicists in a 2014 essay, noting that most do not have the academic credentials to be considered experts, with the sole exception of Carrier. I've explained the broad flaws in Carrier's arguments (that is that he's borrowing from other religions and cultures that have nothing to do with first century Judaism), and I've explained that his arguments have been refuted by his peers.

You can look at the same list I looked at and draw your own conclusion about how many NT scholars there are that doubt the existence of Jesus - but it's very low. In Scientology alone there are hundreds of historians with a Denialist point of view. Just like Mythicists they are generally not experts, but there's way more of them.


Now I want to point out that I have explained in the past what I mean by an academic expert, and others have other definitions. An expert in any field, whether history, medicine, or physics, is someone who is actively involved in research and who publishes evidence. Evidence is something academic - an edited book chapter, an academic book that can be used as a textbook, peer review, and even good quality grey literature counts as well (government publications, and academic publications by respected organisations such as World Health Organisation or Dietitians Association, etc). Michael Marmot, for example, is an expert. I don't agree with his views that we should do away with globalisation and capitalism in the pursuit of creating a more equitable society (which he vocally made on QandA a couple of weeks back), but I absolutely agree with the research and evidence that he and Wilkinson and others have published showing that equality equals better health for individuals in society. If I want to disagree with that I have to find evidence published by other experts that refutes his (and believe me there isn't any!)

Now I have quoted one distinguished expert in particular (Hurtado). Everything he has had published is academic, whereas Ehrman publishes non-academic books. This is not to say that Ehrman is a bad scholar, but his books such as Misquoting Jesus are not suitable to be used as evidence. He of course has peer review articles published too and that is evidence. But in addition to that he has a number of views that are not held in high esteem by his colleagues as well. That's why you can't use non-academic book published by someone who is otherwise an expert.

My point was never to say that Holocaust Denial is more sensible. Just that there are more people who claim to be historians who hold that view when compared with Mythicism. There are more Flat-Earther's than there are Mythicists. There are more Creationists than there are Mythicists. My point is that everyone in this thread needs to learn to stop quoting from fringe theories with very little, if any, true academic support and look to the body of evidence.

(September 6, 2016 at 7:23 am)Aractus Wrote: Again the claim is misleading in a number of ways. Of those seven, only one is qualified and puts forward a scholarly argument - Carrier himself. The others such as Rober Price and Thomas Brodie refuse to publish things academically (in fact Brodie insisted upon publishing his 2012 book with a Christian publisher, not with a publisher with strong academic standards). And they all put forward vastly different hypotheses, and all completely discount each others competing mythicist hypotheses.

I'll explain briefly why Carrier is wrong, because as I quoted in the last post he's the only one worth taking seriously anyway, and for that I will borrow from Hurtado's arguments. Let's say we get the books of the New Testament and do our best to arrange them chronologically (in the order in which they're written) - we're not particularly interested in the pseudepigraphal works, Jude, Revelation, or Hebrews. This is fairly easy to do with the 7 letters of Paul:

c. 50 AD - Thessalonians
c. 53 AD - Galatians
c. 53-4 AD - Corinthians
c. 55 AD - Philippians
c. 55 AD - Philemon
c. 55-6 AD - 2 Corinthians
c. 57 AD - Romans

That's a start anyway, now let's add James and the gospels. Let's be really really liberal with James - I think it's quite early, but there are plenty of scholars who argue for a date as late as 65 AD. There used to be scholars that were convinced it was written later still, but that number has been dwindling recently, in part because of its reliance on two things in particular: the Hebrew Bible, and the pre-gospel sayings of Jesus; as well as appearing to be a rebuttal of Pauline Theology in part. Josephus says that James the Just was martyred in 62 AD, but like I said we do have to assume we can't trust the authorship claim (only because it can't be verified against other letters written by the same author); therefore we'll assume any date from 46-65 AD is possible. We'll put in late dates for all the gospels. This is what we get:

Paul
c. 50 AD - Thessalonians
c. 53 AD - Galatians
c. 53-4 AD - Corinthians
c. 55 AD - Philippians
c. 55 AD - Philemon
c. 55-6 AD - 2 Corinthians
c. 57 AD - Romans
"James"
c. 46-65 AD - James
"Mark"
c. 70-75 AD - Gospel of Mark
"Matthew"
c. 75-95 AD - Gospel of Matthew
Luke
c. 75-95 AD - Gospel of Luke
c. 75-95 AD - Acts of the Apostles
"John"
c. 75-95 AD - Gospel of John

Now we can see a clear pattern. We have Paul writing quite extensively about Jesus at least over a seven year period. Around the same time James writes his letter. Then later, and probably about 20 years later, we get the four gospels and Acts. Paul rarely quotes Jesus directly, however he makes numerous citations to things Jesus is later quoted as saying in the gospels. For example in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Paul delivers a teaching on divorce and attributes it directly to Jesus. It closely resembles what Jesus is quoted as saying in Mark 10:11-12/Matthew 19:8-9. And Paul's Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 closely resembles the gospel accounts of the Last Supper (and Luke's in particular).

Now this is despite the fact that Paul himself has his own theologies that contrast sharply with what Jesus taught in the gospels. A particularly good example of this is flesh theology that does not appear in the synoptic gospels, but does appear in the Gospel of John - perhaps indicating the gospel writer was more influened by Paul's theology than the writers of the synoptics.

Paul has detailed knowledge about Jesus: he was born a Jew (Galatians 4:4 of David's line (Romans 1:3), who has been raised to the celestial realm (Romans 1:4, etc), and has a brother he knows named James (Galatians 1:19). He also quotes an early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

Right so let's break down Carrier's argument now. His argument is that Paul didn't think of Jesus as a real person - despite the fact he quotes him directly, has him interacting with real people, knows his flesh-and-blood brother James, and talks about his crucifixion in every letter! Carrier's argument is that 1. Paul is not talking about a historical person, but rather a celestial being; and 2. After Paul dies the other writers humanise Jesus and make the celestial being that Paul was talking about a patriarchal person. Basically what Carrier's argument requires is that none of the knowledge that Paul has about Jesus is valid. And by "valid" I mean that he came to learn about these things, rather than making them up.

However that argument simply doesn't stack up. It doesn't explain how James has detailed knowledge of the teachings of Jesus before the gospels, it doesn't explain how Paul has detailed knowledge of the teachings as well, it doesn't explain who taught Paul the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, it doesn't explain anything and it doesn't make any goddamned sense when compared with the evidence. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are not as theologically advanced as Paul - and yet are written later, which strongly suggests they're not based around Pauline theology. This can only happen if there are other leaders in the church and they aren't following Paul's theology. And that can't happen if Paul invented it all. How do we get three synoptic gospels all free from Pauline theology if they're all based on the celestial being that Paul invented? Not only is Paul's theology more advanced (and much more advanced than "Mark"'s), but there are two parallel sets of teachings throughout all of his epistles, whereby sometimes he re-purposes teachings delivered from Jesus that he knows about, and at other times he delivers his own teachings all the while going on about how he has the authority to do so.

Specifically, Paul has a different perspective on salvation than that delivered from Jesus himself. Jesus came for the Jews - he says specifically that he "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). He defends the Law of Moses and says it will not pass away (Matthew 5:18), refuting the prophecy made in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is completely contradictory to what Paul teaches, in reaching out to the gentiles and telling them not to bother following the Law of Moses.

These are just some reasons why Carrier's argument is not carried, and why scholars are not persuaded by it (even other mythicsts). In short, for his hypothesis to hold water he has to ignore all the evidence that disagrees with his point of view, and then cherry pick a few bits of evidence that support it.

Now let's talk about all the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus...."crickets"

---

(September 3, 2016 at 1:49 am)Aractus Wrote: [quote pid='1382148' dateline='1472879179']
Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is largely irrelevant, because it's a small tomb about the size of a small fireplace that is designed to be use intermittently and not as a final resting place (it's a bit like what a morgue is today, where the body is placed in a shroud and later transferred to an ossuary).

If[/if] Jesus existed, and [i]if he were placed there, might this not possibly explain the Biblical story with appeal to resurrection?
[/i]
[/quote]

Quote:Joseph of Arimathea's tomb is largely irrelevant...

 So where is it?  Please, please don't say it's at the Church of The Holy Sepulchre or mention the Miracle of the Holy Fire

I note that you either can't or won't answer the simple questions I put to you. Is Israel Finkelstein's scholarship also worthless to you? Instead you are deliberately appealing to a false dichotomy. I answered all your questions, so now answer mine.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:19 am)Aractus Wrote: Now I want to point out that I have explained in the past what I mean by an academic expert, and others have other definitions. An expert in any field, whether history, medicine, or physics, is someone who is actively involved in research and who publishes evidence. Evidence is something academic - an edited book chapter, an academic book that can be used as a textbook, peer review, and even good quality grey literature counts as well (government publications, and academic publications by respected organisations such as World Health Organisation or Dietitians Association, etc).

lol, now writing is evidence? No wonder you believed that claptrap for so long.

You are either missing my point or ignoring it. You've said that there are more Holocaust Deniers than there are Jesus Mythicists. I want you, by your own standards of evidence, to support that.

Give me numbers. I don't want another wall of text appealing to special pleading. I want to see your data.

If you don't have it, you should at least be honest enough to admit that you were, well, mounting argumentum ex culo

(September 8, 2016 at 2:19 am)Aractus Wrote: My point was never to say that Holocaust Denial is more sensible.

No one said that was your point. This is a strawman. And your invocation of Holocaust Denial is both an appeal to emotion and a red herring.

(September 8, 2016 at 2:19 am)Aractus Wrote: Just that there are more people who claim to be historians who hold that view when compared with Mythicism. There are more Flat-Earther's than there are Mythicists. There are more Creationists than there are Mythicists.

So what? We're not talking about that. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand?

(September 8, 2016 at 2:19 am)Aractus Wrote: My point is that everyone in this thread needs to learn to stop quoting from fringe theories with very little, if any, true academic support and look to the body of evidence.

I haven't quoted from any theory at all, fringe or no. I've asked you for the sources to support your claim, and you've signally failed, again, to provide them.

You want another go at it? Show me with numbers that there are more Holocaust Deniers than there are Jesus Mythicists. I'm not asking for your personal experiences or breadth of reading, either, because your claim made neither stipulation.

Or, alternatively, you could simply admit to engaging in hyperbole ... not that I expect that sort of frankness from you.

(September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: lol, now writing is evidence? No wonder you believed that claptrap for so long.

Of course writing is evidence, how else do you think we know about the ancient beliefs and cultures of the ancient world? How would we know what deities the Egyptians worshipped without writing? How would we know what Copernicus had to say without writing? Rely on an oral tradition? You are creating the same fallacy as Firefighter: that is you ignore what the experts tell us is evidence, and thereby create impossible conditions for anyone to prove anything in the ancient world. You can question whether we can truly "know" anything, this is an age-old philosophical question that was the basis for The Matrix for example. But once you have established we can know things about the world, then you must accept what you find. Would you dig up a Tell and say absolutely nothing is of historical value because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards for "evidence"? What about the ancient cities named in Joshua that were successfully discovered during excavations in the 1800-1900's? Obviously the Bible (and in some cases Egyptian writings as well) must have provided some evidence for the existence of these cities, otherwise why would archaeologists have looked for them? And how would they have discovered them if not for their ancient descriptions?

As I just mentioned you are intentionally creating a false dichotomy. The book of Joshua is excellent evidence for the existence of these Canaanite cities, and that has now been proven beyond doubt. But it's terrible evidence as a history book for the inception of the ancient Israeli nation. So it can be good evidence for one thing, and insufficient for something else. This is true of everything in the Bible. Paul's epistles are particularly good evidence - for his theology and what he was preaching during the mid-first century. It doesn't tell us what the Gnostics were preaching, nor can it tell us if the Gnostics had an apostolic lineage, and if it did what it was. In fact it doesn't tell use precisely of the apostolic lineage of Pauline Christianity either. So it's great evidence for some things, and it's not great for other questions we might have about the ancient world and early Christianity.

Your appeal to my lack of intelligence is simply evidence of your own ignorance. Religious beliefs do not indicate people are less smart, or that they are more intelligent than their agnostic peers. I have not seen you, or Firefighter, or Min use any level of critical thinking. None of you have quoted from any distinguished scholar, and you all seem to believe that you can be the ones to decide arbitrarily on what you will accept as evidence, and ignore what academics have to say. You know the "Big Bang"? That's a purely theoretical theory with no empirical evidence whatsoever. If you were going to ignore the consensus of astrophysicists, as well as their peer-review (and other academic) literature, then you could very well say "look there's no evidence of the Big Bang - go find me hard evidence". And you would be creating the same impossible conditions you are creating with the historicity of Jesus.

Quote:I want you, by your own standards of evidence, to support that.

I already showed how small the Mythicist movement is, from an academic source. If you want to refute it go right ahead and provide your own evidence.

Quote:Or, alternatively, you could simply admit to engaging in hyperbole ... not that I expect that sort of frankness from you.

I already quantified it. Holocaust Denial is a bigger movement. There is a museum in USA - Psychiatry: An Industry of Death - which has an exhibition on WWII dedicated to spreading Holocaust Denial. That exhibition would be illegal in several European countries. Nothing like that exists for Jesus Mythicism. That's my evidence, and I don't need any more.

(September 8, 2016 at 4:20 am)Aractus Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: lol, now writing is evidence? No wonder you believed that claptrap for so long.

Of course writing is evidence, how else do you think we know about the ancient beliefs and cultures of the ancient world?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You're assuming the evidentiary value of the writing you're citing, which is wholly insufficient for the claim under discussion. To answer this question -- have you not heard of archaeology? Societies leave behind a lot of physical evidence for their cultural beliefs and mores.

(September 8, 2016 at 4:20 am)Aractus Wrote: How would we know what deities the Egyptians worshipped without writing?

You ever heard of statues?

(September 8, 2016 at 4:20 am)Aractus Wrote: How would we know what Copernicus had to say without writing? Rely on an oral tradition?

Sure, why not? That doesn't mean that if it was written down it would have more evidentiary value ... or are you one of those special folk who think that if it's written down, it must be true?

Say, next week can we debate the existence of Beren and Luthien? I'm sure they existed, because Tolkien wrote about them. And writing is evidence!

Quote:Bart Ehrman (an atheist NT scholar) says that there is hard evidence for the existence of Jesus and that no serious scholars doubt that, and Larry Hurtado (a highly respected scholar) says much the same.

But WHAT IS THAT EVIDENCE, Danny?  Hint:  It's the fucking gospels which are about as useful as tits on a bull in this discussion because they are:

1:  Anonymous
2: Date from considerably later than the events they describe
3: Are full of errors
4: Have been deliberately altered to fit later theological designs.

Now, all of this comes from Professor Ehrman.... who has shit all over them for 25 years but then decided they could be useful to him when he chose to write another book.  I lost a lot of respect for him when he did that.

If they disagree, they're not a serious scholar.

Dang! Airtight.

Has anyone here seen Dan Barker's Challenge? This test shows how unreliable the NT is and how all over the show their core stories are.
" The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted."

Go knock yourselves out with this one!