(September 11, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Aractus Wrote: I have asked you a specific question, the same question I asked of Firefighter - why is it that you have a prejudice against these particular academics (New Testament era historians)? I can actually show you, although it'd be a bit more difficult because I'd have to find my references, but believe me I can show you that not only do NT unanimously scholars say that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person, but so do Roman Empire historians.

Because I find Min's citation, and points regarding original sources, more convincing. I'm admittedly not as schooled as either you or him on the scholarship; but judging from the presentations I've read here on both sides -- and more importantly, judging from you naive trust in Gospel-as-history -- I'm inclined to think that he probably didn't exist. I'm agnostic on the position of historicity. I don't know one way or the other, and quite frankly, I don't think it matters. But I can certainly weigh presented arguments and come to a conclusion.

I am not arguing for broad historicity of the NT. I think there are many points there that can be contested, including (notwithstanding): the nativity, the resurrection, gospel of John, Revelations. Again you are clearly and deliberately miss-categorising my argument. All I said is that scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed. Ask them how many disciples he called, or what was his core message that he preached and they will vehemently disagree and give you all kinds of different answers. But, like I said if you distrust NT scholars soo much then you can look to Ancient Roman historians and they also say that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. So my question remains - if you want to answer it - why do you have prejudice against NT scholars, does it extend to Ancient Roman scholars, does it extend to archaeology, modern medicine, where do you draw the line? If not modern medicine (for example) then where do you stand on António Egas Moniz's contribution to medicine and was it worthy of a Nobel Prize? Moniz is of course a prime example of why, oh say a Scientologist, might hold a stigma against his profession.

You do realize that you confused NT and OT, right?

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: I am not arguing for broad historicity of the NT.

I didn't say you were. There's another strawman.

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: I think there are many points there that can be contested, including (notwithstanding): the nativity, the resurrection, gospel of John, Revelations. Again you are clearly and deliberately miss-categorising my argument.

No, I am not. And again, you're ascribing intent, refusing to acknowledge that you're not putting your argument across in a convincing manner and instead opting to allege that I am deliberately missing your points. I am not. I simply don't find them convincing. Your argument is weak, given how you cherry-pick your scholars.

You do not know what I'm thinking, and you need to stop fooling yourself in thinking that you do. It only makes you look more the ass than you already do. Eliminate the flaws in your argumentation, and you can give me food for thought. Continue propounding them, and I'll only point them out again.

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: All I said is that scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed.

Not so. You then proceeded to bat down any scholar who didn't agree with your view, without regard to their C.V.

Please don't dissimulate here.

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: Ask them how many disciples he called, or what was his core message that he preached and they will vehemently disagree and give you all kinds of different answers. But, like I said if you distrust NT scholars soo much then you can look to Ancient Roman historians and they also say that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person.

I don't distrust scholars. I distrust you, specifically your loaded presentation and selective application of qualifications for scholarship.

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: So my question remains - if you want to answer it - why do you have  prejudice against NT scholars, does it extend to Ancient Roman scholars, does it extend to archaeology, modern medicine, where do you draw the line?

I don't have that prejudice. Again, this is you projecting a mindset upon me I don't hold, simply because I don't buy your "argument", such as it is, lock, stock, and barrel. I prefer scholarly sources; however, when they disagree, as they do here, I don't prefer hearing you pick your favorite scholars, who just happen to agree with your views, and disregard the others, which is exactly what you are doing here. It calls into question your honesty in this discussion, that you should apply such arbitrary standards.

(September 12, 2016 at 3:24 am)Aractus Wrote: If not modern medicine (for example) then where do you stand on António Egas Moniz's contribution to medicine and was it worthy of a Nobel Prize? Moniz is of course a prime example of why, oh say a Scientologist, might hold a stigma against his profession.

I will ignore this red herring. You must be backed into a corner if you're stretching for such a small point as this. Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the ebb and flow of this discussion?

I will also ask once more why you place such trust in writings which clearly have at the least a motivation for bias such as the Gospels.

I don't expect a square answer from you. I expect more imputations of intent, red herrings, distortions of my point, and dissimulation. I could be wrong, but I don't think it'll pan out that way. Your schtick is not only all too clear, it's far too ingrained for you to shake it off now.

I'll leave it to you to rise above these expectations. You'll either do it or you won't.

(September 12, 2016 at 5:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Your argument is weak, given how you cherry-pick your scholars.

Well I have given you full opportunity to provide your own, and you have not. I have provided 1 distinguished scholar on this, you have provided 0.

Quote:Not so. You then proceeded to bat down any scholar who didn't agree with your view, without regard to their C.V.

Right, so again here I am quoting, verbatim, Hurtado - not putting forward my own argument. I will acknowledge that Carrier is the outlier, I don't think Hurtado has anything to say about him? Nevertheless I have quoted a distinguished scholar on this, you have not and the onus of proof is on you.

Quote:I will also ask once more why you place such trust in writings which clearly have at the least a motivation for bias such as the Gospels.

Define "trust"? Because I don't think I trust the gospels at all, especially not John, and the writings I (personally) revere most are the non-gospel writings of Paul and James.

Quote:I don't expect a square answer from you.

How is that not a square answer? Since when have I tried to deceive or use an outlier to mount an argument?

Oh and...

Quote:judging from you naive trust in Gospel-as-history

Aractus Wrote:I am not arguing for broad historicity of the NT.

I didn't say you were. There's another strawman.

Really??

Except I'm not trying to prove anything about historicity to you. As I have said, I'm agnostic on the matter. Surely you read that, right?

My point here, since you clearly still don't understand it, is that your own arbitrary standards for scholarship - dismissing those who don't agree with you as unscholarly - gives the strong appearance of bias on your part, and that does your point no favors.

My only problem with Hurtado is that he seeks to define the problem according to his own bias.  This is a common failing of theologians.  He's hardly alone.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/...d-premise/

Quote: Why should a difference between what Jesus taught about himself and what believers subsequently came to assert about him be a problem?

He cannot escape the trap of asserting from the outset that there was any such person.  Personally, and here is where I think Carrier nails it, until you can demonstrate that jesus is more than a later literary creation the "jesus said this" and "jesus said that" shit is meaningless.  Carrier carefully examined the evidence and found it wanting.  As Ehrman notes in the video, this stuff has been heavily edited and augmented:  Scholars agree that the first two chapters of "luke" are add-ons and it should start at Chapter III.  Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, this is exactly where Marcion started it.

Weird, huh?

(September 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Aractus Wrote:

(September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: Which are the questions that you are talking about and I'll do my best?

Well, despite the fact you just attempted to attack a very distinguished Israeli archaeologist and scholar with a description of one of his works rather than a critique of it, my question was this:

Quote:Where do you draw the line. You essentially tried to claim that Scholar's are hacks - does this apply to all academic fields? Does this apply to all scholars? Does it apply to Old Testament scholars and archaeologists or is this a specific prejudice you have against New Testament scholars, and if it is why is it?

I don't trust scholars with obvious biases. Especially when their pay-cheques and/or career paths are on the line if they step over the lines.

(September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: According to Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James .."Many scholars consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries:[13]"

and from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html 
- Information on the Epistle of James
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3): ...

Quote:Aractus
As I indicated, most scholars today place the authorship 50-65 AD. Many of the arguments made in your quoted material are based purely on assumptions. If the Bible is correct that Jesus's father was a builder...

Firefighter01
You're kidding aren't you?  Do you really think that Jesus had a literal family relationship?  Maybe like an ancient Jewish version of Little House on the Prairie?

(September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: I wouldn't say that is correct. He knows nothing about his virgin birth or anything else about the nativity, nothing about the miracles, ministry, cleansing of the Temple, triumphant ride into Jerusalem or trial

Quote:Aractus
The virgin birth, in fact the whole nativity, is a myth. That's easy. He might well have known that such a rumour was going around in his lifetime, but he doesn't bother writing about it. He clearly knows about what you call "miracles" (healings), he clearly knows about the message Jesus preached (even though he mixes it with his own theology). He knows about the crucifixion, and he knows about the Last Supper, thus by extension we would expect he knows about the details of the trial and the events leading up to it. That's not to say the gospels are entirely accurate at all, just that Paul knew about all those things.

Firefighter01
Ok I'm glad you think the nativity is a myth. Unless you can prove otherwise, he writes practically nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels until you get to the crucifixion and even that has none of the details contained in the Gospels. I think you would find it very hard to demonstrate that he knew of those things if he didn't write about them.

(September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: What do you mean, ..."despite the fact he quotes him directly, has him interacting with real people"
Would the flesh and blood brother of the Lord leave out his bloodline to Jesus? Would a biological brother say, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ"? I don't think so.

Aractus

Quote:Although Paul does not make a habit of quoting Jesus, he does quote him directly on occasion and he makes numerous citations to stuff that Jesus preached. Furthermore he talks about Jesus interacting with people in a way that a celestial being does not. In other words, Carrier's argument ignores everything Paul has to say about Jesus, because it is clear to anyone that Paul is talking about a person and not a celestial body.

State your reasons why you don't think James the Just would write that introduction. Again, this is a moot point anyway, I don't care which James wrote James, it doesn't change the fact that it was written before the gospels of Matthew and Luke and has detailed knowledge of two sermons in particular that only appear in those writings, which proves that Matthew and Luke couldn't have "made up" the sermons on the Mount & Plain.

Firefighter01
Maybe he quotes what he dreams about Jesus in the apparitions, but what does he quote Jesus saying in the Gospel accounts?  A brother wouldn't declare himself a servant of his sibling. That's as silly as thinking that Jesus' other "brother" would say this in Jude1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James"  It's saying that Jude is a servant to his brother Jesus, but his real claim to fame is he is the bother of James, lol!

As I have said previously, "brothers" and "sisters" were titles of followers, not necessarily blood relations. 

(September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: Among the problems about Israel Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed: http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/bib...rthed.html:

What you have just (I assume mistakenly) quoted is a description is a description of 'Bible Unearthed', not a critique of it.

Yeah, I got that wrong, you are correct.  Sorry dude!

Quote:There is a stele of Pharaoh Merneptah mentions a people named Israel living in Canaan by 1200 BCE

Well maybe.  The actual evidence is far less compelling than such a definitive statement might suggest.

(September 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: I don't trust scholars with obvious biases. Especially when their pay-cheques and/or career paths are on the line if they step over the lines.

Well that's true of every profession. Doctors make their money by keeping you sick. Police officers make their money by increasing crime. Economists make their money by scaremongering. You can accuse every profession of bias.

Historians don't earn a lot of money either. Even distinguished ones. You don't seem to be being objective here either. I can name historians of ancient Rome who also say Jesus was historical - they don't have a horse in the race, and their focus is on Greece/Rome not on Christianity.

(September 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: You're kidding aren't you?  Do you really think that Jesus had a literal family relationship?  Maybe like an ancient Jewish version of Little House on the Prairie?

He obviously had parents.

(September 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: Ok I'm glad you think the nativity is a myth. Unless you can prove otherwise, he writes practically nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels until you get to the crucifixion and even that has none of the details contained in the Gospels. I think you would find it very hard to demonstrate that he knew of those things if he didn't write about them.

That isn't true. Paul writes a lot about Jesus, and scholars debate exactly how much he directly cites from him.

(September 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: Maybe he quotes what he dreams about Jesus in the apparitions, but what does he quote Jesus saying in the Gospel accounts?  A brother wouldn't declare himself a servant of his sibling. That's as silly as thinking that Jesus' other "brother" would say this in Jude1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James"  It's saying that Jude is a servant to his brother Jesus, but his real claim to fame is he is the bother of James, lol!

Right, so you don't have an argument then since you can't tell me what was and wasn't normal literary custom in those times regarding titles. Anyway like I said I don't care which James wrote James.

(September 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: As I have said previously, "brothers" and "sisters" were titles of followers, not necessarily blood relations.

Right so why doesn't Paul use that title then?

(September 12, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: My only problem with Hurtado is that he seeks to define the problem according to his own bias.  This is a common failing of theologians.  He's hardly alone.

What do you have against Michael Scott, what possible bias are you going to claim he has seeing as he's a historian of ancient Greece-Rome and that's his focus, (i.e. he's not an NT scholar, but perfectly qualified to answer questions on historicity nonetheless)?

Furthermore this documentary series he has writing credits for (as well as narrates) is excellent: at the same quality as Bible Unearthed, many of the facts presented are not what Christians would want to hear - it is very neutral:

https://youtu.be/W1XuyWoRUc0