The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[robvalue]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

[Minimalist]

Even primary sources need to be approached with caution.

Caesar's Gallic Wars are primary sources because he wrote them about his own actions but he still made the absurd claim the 250,000 Gauls came to relieve Alesia.  People lie.

With 'jesus' we have no such problem because we have no primary sources.

[Pizza]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

The "most historians think Jesus existed" claim apologists like him make is misleading, since they don't ask for the details and qualifications of each historians views on the historicity of Jesus problem. I'd bet you most would say we can't tell the man from the myth. I remember in high school we had a world history textbook that said historians don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not. Make of that what you may.

[Esquilax]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway.

[Pizza]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway.

But who would die for a lie?!

[Esquilax]

But who would die for a lie?!

I don't think Jesus had much of a choice, at the end there.

[Minimalist]

It's because most christians would like it very much if everyone would play along with them when they conflate "Jesus existing" with "Jesus was god," so that they can use evidence of the former as evidence of the latter. You can see it in Randy's absolutely comical minimal facts offering, where "Jesus was crucified," is used as evidence of the resurrection. When there's no evidence of the supernatural claims, you have to pretend that the mundane ones overreach immensely to keep believing in the supernatural claims anyway.

But who would die for a lie?!

Yeah....who?

[Brakeman]

The "bible scholars" referred to get their money from colleges that have strong theistic support to fund their departments. Atheist don't donate much to religious studies departments. For Bart Ehrman to remove every bone of jesus would seriously damage his department's funding and make him less employable, whether he admits it or not.

[Minimalist]

And for an example of that...

http://www.gwhatchet.com/2014/02/17/top-...ons-major/

Classics scholar, fired from last college for criticizing Bible, will help plan new major at GW

If you don't know who Chris Rollston is, here is his wiki page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rollston


But none of that matters when you tell your boss that his fucking bible is a piece of shit.

[Minimalist]

Lol good point, my apologies!

Before Randy disappeared into a puff of smoke, he never answered why Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill are still atheists even after having a profound understanding of the evidence that we all lack. Unless I missed his answer.

The "most historians think Jesus existed" claim apologists like him make is misleading, since they don't ask for the details and qualifications of each historians views on the historicity of Jesus problem. I'd bet you most would say we can't tell the man from the myth. I remember in high school we had a world history textbook that said historians don't know if Jesus Christ existed or not. Make of that what you may.

Indeed, it is even worse than that.  Habermas has never released the list of supposed 'scholars' he claims give him 75% support for his minimal facts bullshit.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...urrection/

Habermas admitted in 2012, “Most of this material is unpublished.” With his data secret, his conclusions are uncheckable. Carrier says that Habermas has denied repeated requests to review his data.

Habermas is happy to reject the conclusion of 99% of the experts who understand evolution (see his attitude toward evolution here, here, and here). Ditto for William Lane Craig. Neither is in a position to object to anyone rejecting the 75% conclusion about the resurrection.

There is no grounds by which a layman like Habermas can reject a consensus in science.

Habermas is, in short, a bullshit artist...but anyone with a brain knows that as soon as they see Liberty University.